Actually, the analogy is not far off from our present situation. In the disordered world, the anti-world, a “Babylon,” where Jewish unconcern for our class is the rule, sex disconfirms the worthy, destroys the precious and brings into being the vicious, the irresponsible at our expense. (1)

It isn’t funny.

. . . . .

If we can care about the preservation of rain forests, the hills of West Virginia, endangered species and the gulf of Mexico, and we certainly do care, very much, then we are assuredly warranted by any standard, left, right, or in-between, to care for our co-evolutionary people, our co-evolutionary women.

A pervasive ecological view, combining as it does the taxonomic system of class (as in the White race), acts as a corrective to Lockeatine empiricism – its Cartesian notion of individual rights being prone to rupture systemic, evolutionary process.

It also acts as a corrective to the toxicity of John Dewey’s instrumental pragmatism. That is of significance as Dewey was particularly resourceful with his instrumentalism, and with that, a large influence in promoting liberal democracy, despite his philosophy having serious flaws.

Despite its resource and influence his pragmatism de-emphasizes the significance of deep genetic and processual relationships. In being overstated, the facts of historical, co-evolutionary processes in the development of maturation and skill recede from consideration. Being overly practical thus, it promotes a disposition of progressing ever forward, in search of "ever more full and rich experience." As such, it devalues consideration of biological optimality – biological creatures do not need “more and more”, too much is toxic as is too little. Moreover, being quite so instrumental, it is not sufficiently respectful of natural processes and necessarily corresponding metaphors of reflection, gestation and digestion. It is not sufficiently respectful of ecological systems requirement for the flexibility of empty space and unused potentiality for change.

While the slow meandering of Heidegger’s philosophy makes it better in those regards, the ecological view acts as a corrective to his oversights as well – for example in regard to "own-most being toward death." This too would be toxic, a good last alternative, but not a proper day-to-day premise for White survival, as nature rarely works within lethal variables. It should be bad enough that miscegenation is possible. Black-on-White murder or the extinction of Whites would not even approach appreciable consideration before compelling action on an ecological basis.

Finally, the pervasive ecological view corrects the toxicity in Nietzsche’s perspective, his valuation of the "overman". His is a conception that panders, as it were, to a puerile female point of view toward men, wishing them to be impervious to social and natural environment and showing little appreciation for a man’s normal point of view toward beauty, caring, cooperation and social responsibility in women. Nietzsche goes so far as to admire Negroes, by analogy, for their ‘digestive tracts’, as they are quickly done with guilt and fret about problems. That, as compared to White men who are taken to be overwrought with sublimation and "resentment," should be a clue that his was not a perfect model for White men and the White class. Nobody, outside of stupid White women, who has had meaningful experience with Blacks, would want to model White male behavior after Blacks.

Toward regaining the ecological pattern of Whites on the gender interface, the most radical issue is not White men not being men enough. Neither is it particularly the matter that male sexuality has been inhibited by feminism. Clearly, women can be as sexually liberal as men, if not more. In fact, White men must be tactful enough to not let themselves to be incited into low, individual competition, for example with Blacks, who have nothing approaching equal exchange. Whites must not be instigated, whether by Jewish interests, or by ignorant men and women empowered with pseudo-objectivism. The most crucial matter in correction of gender relations is not even marriage or traditional values. What is required is that White people see their own interests in instantiation of the class and its viability through separatism. This will increase trust and reduce competition between the genders. Toward that end, Whites must fight to dis-empower those niches that maintain the Jewish-pseudo-objectivist system. Thereupon, they may rebuild that which is necessary to themselves, the deep pattern of The White Class. It will ensconce the significant value that individual recognition and relationships may provide.

However, I will argue in this essay that the instantiation and maintenance of the class requires that a most radical option of absolute monogamy be respected. A sacral provision for sex, including institution of absolute monogamy, will provide the White class with crucial value worth fighting for.

. . . . .

Sex as Sacrament Sex as Celebration

Anti-racism, whether derived of Jewish elites ethnocentrism, corporate interests, the upshot of scientism or the generally naïve, destroys the class, the biodiversity it affords, both within and without the class – biodiversity, a necessity for natural selection and the flexibility of ecological balance. Over and against that, the white class is warranted among pervasive ecology to contribute to the homeostasis of world systems.

For our own people, the white class is required to ensconce the freedom of our full systemic, developmental processes and evolution.

Thesis: Seminal and essential to instantiation of the class, its flexibility of ecological balance and accountability, is freedom of choice as maintained through voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls. It is ensconced in the notion of sex as sacrament: the sacrosanct reconstruction of an episode uniquely important to the survival of the cultural pattern.

How practical it is in reality is far less important than it being recognized, sanctioned as a viable option – available, respected, institutionalized, normalized as vitally important – sex as a sacrament.

. . . . .

While there are many ways to look upon sex and many "stories to tell", the dichotomy between the sacral and the celebratory serves to problematize the issue. It moves us beyond insufficient accounts AND beyond clichés, such as those of liberalism, which would disingenuously depict White advocates amidst non-Whites as sexual puritans, or hung-up conservatives who believe sex is dirty. On the other hand, it moves us beyond the destructive dismissiveness of scientism (2), which holds that sex is merely a natural and normal bodily function that allows for no cultural mediation, that sex is merely natural, and that we should have no objection to our sublime women being taken by (expletives) through the auspices of sex.

If we are within the class, and the rules are that the class is to be maintained, then sex as a celebration is perhaps valid within the class, where mutual survival is assured and valued.

In recent times, the criticism that Americans are too “puritanical” has been typical coming from Europeans. It is a highly irritating remark, particularly as Europe has been historically comprised of White nations. Thus, reflecting a terrible narcissism, taking for granted their deep grounding while ignoring the daunting rigors of America’s perilously mixed-up demographic and un-protective rule structure.

Old Europe, when and where the classes were stable, had a point for itself. In fact, those ensconced within the class might look upon sexual conservatism as dangerously snobbish, breeding bad blood between people otherwise in common. One of the benign aspects of “racism,” of class membership, as previously mentioned, is that it can allow us to transcend jealousy within the class as we are all providing for the same ends. We are all friends and on the same team within the class; have yourself a piece of ass and don’t be angry with others among the class who are making themselves happy. Is that a bit ideal, too idealistic? Yes, especially now, in a demographically disordered and barely accountable situation – the disordered situation of West Europe and America especially.

Sex as a celebration makes valid sense in a homogeneous White nation wherein the genetic stakes are not so great, but even there, as anything more than a limited option, it would be reckless; whereas it is absolutely reckless in a heterogeneous society.

By now, with the inundation of non-Whites into Western Europe, perhaps the wise are becoming a bit more "puritanical". But even at that, Europeans have always had an advantage over Americans, in that they have recourse to their ancient national heritages and lands. They can fall back on the notion that this is their country, their people, AND their history more easily than American Whites, whereas White Americans have been largely forced to identify themselves as "American", i.e., with its rule structure and brief history not providing recourse to a deep European heritage, they are "the same as non-Whites, all just Americans."

It is nonsense to dismiss as puritanical White Americans who are not free-loving and celebratory with their sex amidst Negroes and sundry non-Whites.

If you are not disposed to celebration at this point in time, especially not in such a demographically mixed situation, especially not with regard to something as important as sex, it is more than understandable.

Thus, for the purposes of this essay, sex as celebration versus sex as a sacrament serves as a problematizing distinction; it serves particularly to emphasize a willing suspension of belief in the innocence of sex as celebration. As a conceptual foil, it will hopefully serve to illustrate how obnoxious and destructive the celebrations can be. As they are flaunted in the face of those who exercise care, mocking the sacredness of the group’s deep resource, it is the purpose here to lend credence to sex as sacrament.

. . . . .

Sex is surely not merely a trivial matter of an episode. It concerns confirmation or disconfirmation of persons and their worth as socio-political decision makers. Even more fundamentally, it is the natural means by which people come into and populate the world in a responsible way or not; legacies set forth or not; at an appropriate age, or not; in reasonable numbers as resources, experience and wisdom afford, or not – and much more.

Two key aspects that makes sex as sacrament into a viable option is the fact that sex is sexy – that is to say, its mechanism. Another is the dimension of social control.

Let me first address its mechanism – sex is sexy. Its erotic mechanism is of two contrasts.

One contrast is that of human dignity (in patterns of relationship) contrasting with animal drive.

The other is a tension between human dignity as opposed to dominance and submission. (That is, providing that the roles are treated somewhat empathically; and that one role or the other is not taken too seriously).

This mechanism of tension that makes sex sexy in essence bodes for the possibility of sex as sacrament as opposed to a merely naturalistic argument that may dismiss sacrament as nonsense.

Sex as sacrament is naturally practical as it is not so contingent upon one’s being the most skilled or beautiful at all times. It is especially practical if class boundaries are enforced and/or a sacral attitude is socially normalized.

. . . . .

Apart from its mechanism thus, another aspect of sex that enables the possibility of sacrament is that its conduct can be relatively altered by social influence.

A social framework toward sex facilitates even greater rigor for the truth of the matter over scientistic treatment. It gives advantages as well. For example, if a sublime White woman gives herself to a Black, we are more attentive with the social framework to the precipitating aspects whereof her decision was not made alone. The circumstance has been arranged for, encouraged, manipulated and allowed for; those who would object have been silenced by social injunction. This result is not a mere no account matter of science, let alone religion.

By contrast, the scientistic view (2) would hold that sex is a merely natural fact, biologically determined and therefore, socially incorrigible. The episode and moment of sexual union would be very tightly linked with mere biological imperatives. Who, after all, could question that? It is just a scientific fact. That’s just the way it is, natural law. It has little to do with the mediation of the quality of life beyond that. .

But if it is not merely determined that the women do this, if our behavior is not so determined, but rather to some extent negotiable of interactive patterns, a matter of conjoint social construction of the class, then it is corrigible, agentive and accountable – there is something that can be done about it, which is not necessarily to her detriment even, if the way of life is deemed at least as valuable and important as the moment.

Note this distinction: negotiable patterns of conjoint interaction as opposed to descriptions of it as caused, determined.

While the acknowledgment of our having some interactive relation to other races and environment is a small concession to a lack of purity, it has the large pay-off of providing for agentive control as opposed to our race being a mere force and accident of nature. This property of the White pattern’s contingency provides for the deliberate construction of our White class. It establishes our warrant, our credit to establish for ourselves how our history counts for us and how our future direction may proceed. Thus, the notion of conjoint negotiation of interactive patterns assists in establishing warrant in defending stable and profound patterns of Whites (e.g. our DNA). These determinations of how White patterns are to count and be constructed may also be applied to individual Whites within the life span and within the group. Moreover, this agency may be applied to negotiate our relation of how the White class counts and is to proceed in relation to other groups. Hence, this agentive social management facilitates coherence, accountability, warrant and choice to our agentive advantage and use, as and for Whites.

"Rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is emptying." ~ Kenneth Burke

Let’s look at some of the other alternatives for a moment, at how the following stories that suggest that sex is a matter of mere causality and therefore nothing that can be done, neatly ignore accountability to 40,000 years of White evolution:

"Sex is always a ubiquitous tension to be resolved between defiling lust and purifying love" as John Money conceived it. Sex is almost assuredly not the ubiquitous tension as he conceived it to be because he parcels love and lust from the social, from the class too much: defilement and purifying supposedly having some fixed place above social contingency.

“It was just defiling lust.”

"We fell in love"

Ok, almost enough in the way of examples. We can all vomit already. That’s that for an account.

Rather, let’s move on.

"He was stronger" – We might ask, phenotypically, genotypically, in what historical unit of analysis, in combination with what allies?

Described by Frank Zappa as "a normal bodily function" it is a sterile scientism, granting no importance to various levels of significance, relations and histories involved in sex.

The position that "it is just natural" that "it is just a natural fact of life" is prone to become a rogue’s way of avoiding accountability.

Even so eloquent a defender of White interests as Jared Taylor was hard pressed to respond to a Black who argued with him that if miscegenation was not natural then “why did there have to be laws against it in The U.S. for so long?”

This is a case where Jared’s scientifically oriented arguments fail his interests at least to some extent. An effective rejoinder may be in cast terms of there being laws against rape and pedophilia, and yet not many would dream of repealing laws against them just because these are inclinations for some. That is, social injunctions are meant to protect the class against those whose judgment is insufficient to its sustenance. Similarly, we cannot necessarily expect the young woman, such as the one involved with the Black who made this argument, to have sufficient judgment, having been immersed in the context of the pervasive disconfirmation of White interests through political correctness. Jared’s argument that spontaneous and voluntary lunchroom segregation may occur between Whites and Blacks fails to recognize that Jewish interests have a long-standing practice of elevating the status of those exceptions to the rule over and against the vast pattern; and they know that they can exploit social corrigibility, especially of the exceptions, to weaken White solidarity. Yet oddly, despite his attempts to gingerly side step the Jewish question, the fear that Jared’s objectivist arguments engender is to some extent understandable, as they also bypass accountability (as discussed in The White Left articles).

Thesis 2: Sex as Sacrament can be sufficiently compelling to maintain itself in institution through the mechanism of sex being “sexy”, viz. through a tension between social dignity and animal drive; and a tension between social dignity as opposed to dominance and submission.

Lending more possibility to the institutionalization of sex as sacrament is the protracted negotiation that the social-historical unit of analysis affords over the moment and episode.

Sex being sexy through erotic tension with human dignity and its being socially corrigible, lend practicality its sacrament being institutionalized, normalized – an affordance which should be.

Elaborating the advantage to the sacral view of sex is where we will resume next time.

. . . . .

It is hard to imagine a greater image of hell than to have our co-evolutionary women, whom we are born to love and worship, take delight in destroying us, believing that they are virtuous for doing so. It is time to take the phony halo off of such conduct. It can be a great relief to become confident that some behavior really does deserve the worst of fate.

Scientism is the crass misuse of "scientific" thinking, decontextualiztion which would obfuscate its practitioners to and from accountability and their will to power with the pretext of objectivism, its reflex, severe relativism, supposedly beyond personal motives.

You bear the chains from centuries of Europeans questing after objective and universal foundations, equality lending itself as one of the most convenient abstractions in service of universal criteria. The chain breaks at the weakest link and non-equality is taken as the apparent response in correction of this conceptual error, its crisis.

Of course, quite the opposite of modern day Scrooge’s our chain has not been forged of niggardliness – quite the opposite, it was born in a spirit of charity and liberation, universal brotherhood of man, causing us to lose sight of patterns, of our own particularly.

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.” – G.B.

Non-equality is not merely an insufficient emancipation from our chains. In fact, it reconstructs the very framework, the paradigm, “the rubric under which we meet.”

. . . . .

“Paradigm” emerges as yet another example of terms that have been abused. We have discussed the abuse and misuse of other terms, such as “leftism”, which is really open-borders, obsequious liberalism that is promoted to Whites by Jewish academics and political planners. “Social constructionism” is another example, promoted as idealist by Jewish academics, as opposed to its being the realist notion that it is meant to be – race is not a “mere” social construct; it is a real social construct. Vico, one of the fist proponents of social constructionism, was realist. In fact, he was also one of the first opponents of Cartesianism. As a similar result of abused terms, those who balk at the word “paradigm” perhaps need to be reminded that Jewish academia latches onto good concepts, obfuscates, abuses and deploys them to their ends.

Taking a social constructionist premise that a paradigm does not begin with an object of inquiry, but rather with a group of practitioners (“if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it”…), a paradigm is a pattern, a logic of meaning and action shared by a group of people. When the logic of meaning and action of one paradigm does not compare and mesh well with another, i.e., when the means and ends do not jibe between two paradigms, they are said to be incommensurate.

Though it is not the first time that I have known of the illustration of checkers and chess, the VoR’s Peter Schaenk used the analogy of Jews playing chess while Whites are playing checkers. Whites continually get routed as a result, as the chess player plans farther in advance. This is an example of incommensurate paradigms, incommensurate logics of meaning and action: Jews playing chess while Whites play checkers.

In reality, the matter is extremely serious and it is of urgent importance that we begin to understand and instantiate paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference.

Thesis: The notion of non-equality entails false comparison, elitism, unnecessary conflict and destruction of our people. It is rectified by concern with paradigmatic differences, classifications (of race) which make a difference as they focus attention on qualitatively different processes that provide means of systemic cooperation among and between classifications.

Examples of detrimental blending of incommensurate paradigms are abundant, but the results are predictable – unnecessary destruction to vital class members and unnecessary conflict with other groups. On the other hand, by ongoing attention to maintenance of the qualitative difference of the White class, we are flexible to deal with various antagonists as need be while disputes over which is enemy is worst are kept to a minimum.

By way of examples, I have already engaged in discussion of how traditional and modern gender agendas are incommensurate; traditional women seek to maintain the base of the hierarchy of motives for themselves while traditional males tend to pursue the top. Reversing modernist males will seek the base of the hierarchy, existence and being, while overcompensating modernists, like Clinton, will pursue achievement, extending themselves beyond the interests of the class. Reversing modernist women will seek the top of the hierarchy, while overcompensating modernist women will perhaps undermine the class as some sort of radical Marxist type.

As mentioned last time, with the addition of some poor grammar, the Black Power movement, where it asserts that the Black man will rule, is seeking after the top of the hierarchy while a good portion of White men are seeking to warrant their existence, the base of the hierarchy.

Near the beginning of the incommensurate gender agendas article, I cite Philip Rushton’s analysis demonstrating different rates of sexual maturity between different peoples, such as Blacks, Whites and East Asians. This provides another example of incommensurate paradigms. Specifically, I use the example of the White girl who may in fact be a marginal within an earlier stage of her development and snapped-up by the earlier maturing and sexually aggressive Black, as a result, even though she is not defective, rather she would be something more like the ”cream of the class”, the paragon of White womanhood, in fully developed maturity. Her appropriately matching White partner would be left out of the equation because of his later sexual maturity, and with that, his greater sublimation, the attendant circumspection which might have so many corrective effects. This catastrophic meshing of incommensurate paradigms, disrupting and altering the co-evolution of millennia, is often perpetrated by other White men, on their high horse, out to show the little ladies how objective and “morally superior” that they are overcoming White male defense. But notice the loss of the girl who has become a mud-shark and the boy who is relegated to the beta male 86 list is not necessarily characterized by better or worse, but of ignored qualitative differences and processes. In truth these differences are profound, a tremendous loss suffered as a result of the attempted integration of incommensurate logics of sexual maturity.

Whites are taking more steps toward reproduction, learning more, cultivating resource and amenity along the way but often losing out to Blacks who are going right at it, while the Jews are playing chess, are given to be up-in-the-head wind-bags, continually misframing issues to the detriment of Whites. IF we can get the Jewish rule structure off of our backs, Blacks are a weekend operation (TT). In the meantime and nevertheless, Blacks are not so easy in all respects. Black musical ability, athletic ability, street smarts and sexual patterns as compared to the abilities that distinguish Whites provide still another example, ridiculous perhaps, of imposed incommensurability.

Human Biodiversity is not really right wing, but so long as others understand that the White Class claims the same turf, we may wish them well in promoting the idea. In fact, human biodiversity comports exactly with the notion of incommensurability as well. Otherwise, when variables, such as I.Q., are isolated, many important, evolutionary contingencies of the pattern are perhaps being removed. Cooperative functions of their level of development or niche would be ignored by false comparisons as “non-equal” instead of their being regarded as different qualitative functions from others within the class. Thus, isolating one sort of skill ought to be considered carefully so as not to be detrimental to the ecology of the class as a whole. Who is going to emerge to save the White class in a given instant can be a surprise, but it stands to reason that they may not emerge from the ranks of the most comfortable. As Cobb has pointed out, it could be somebody quite ordinary (or worse) who makes the difference, not necessarily the best chess player. It is possible to be too compassionate, but while recruiting to the ranks of White defense, for an indefinite time, in fact, focus need be on those who will fight; giving encouragement to a broad range of Whites to lend their agency with the notion that they may be of help, whatever their skills, so long as the end game is commensurate with the 14 words. My position is, who it is that will fight will sort out who is worthy.

Objectivity, as we have discussed, is another incommensurate logic to the relative interests of the White Class. In fact, objectivism is one of the chief culprits in leveling paradigms into universal criteria.

There are many examples of incommensurability bearing upon the class that may be explored farther, perhaps pursued in operational verification.

Now then, from the individual scale to White nations and states, the principle of qualitative difference holds true as well.

European from non-European is the more important, paradigmatic difference. Nevertheless, the nations, states and regions within the European peoples, which I am calling the White Class, are important as well, and need the freedom to be fully distinct and of their own population.

The key is to distinguish indigenous native Europeans and non-native Europeans (especially elite) along with elite, White traitors. This is to distinguish a trivial difference from profound difference, and to avoid unnecessary ecological blunder: In maintaining a view toward the ecology of qualitative processes, of paradigmatic differences and the buffering of the European nations our White Class paradigm may be analogized to symbiotically functioning organs of a body; or take TT’s idea that the European nations and states might be looked upon as compartments of a ship. The Class ensconces relatively trivial differences from profound differences; those evolved in Europe over tens of thousands of years are within the class. Nevertheless, recognizing the profundity and potential acrimony of attempts to blend the European states, let us call them incommensurate paradigms, their distinctions needing to be maintained. We do not want to hear that Germany’s loans failed, about the Euro, about the E.U. Poles should not be inundating Britain – all broaching of paradigms. Nevertheless, with state sovereignties established, whether by analogy of the compartmentalized ship or the body and its parts, when speaking of the class, we include all native Europeans. No, they should not be imposing upon each other. But, in defending against non-Europeans, we have our most important common ground as the White Class, here in Europe, in the White States of America and elsewhere.

While understanding that the disastrous treaties that led one European country after another into WWI calls for significant caution, a basis of voluntary assistance as opposed to mandatory alliance can prevent that sort of overall disaster. Toward the end of avoiding inter-European war, Dr. Lowell’s focus on regions probably has merit as well.

So long as the focus continually comes back on the White Class and its needs there need be no inconsistency among the various challenges that we face. While I am persuaded that our two greatest enemies are elite Jews and elite traitorous Whites, that may appear absurd to Western Europeans faced with massive Muslim immigration. It may seem absurd to the American Southerner faced with masses of Blacks, with their long pre-evolution lending bio-power to pejorative characteristics, menacing characteristics thereof faced by South Africa as well. In fact their population growth, the fastest in world, combined with the negative aspects of their bio-power, are arguably among the greatest threats of all. In the U.S. South-West, it is the Mestizos invasion and population that emerges most urgent. Still others will rightfully claim that Chinese overpopulation, capacity for technology, economic hegemony, combined with an unsympathetic attitude are what’s most alarming. India’s population and economy can be the worry for others. Still others will see low ranking traitors to be the relevant concern. Pierce was not above critiques of popular culture. The truth is that they are all problems for us, and they all merit defense in an ongoing course of vigilance and tact. While some may wish to defend their particular state only; it is the White Class in full that can provide the numbers, skills and the territory to win the war; and thus should be our full organizational outlook. Secondly, we ought to be able to agree that it is the policy makers who impose immigration and integration upon us who are to be prioritized as enemies – they are apparently Jewish elites and elite White traitors. Whatever the case, whatever the contingency or the immediate enemy, we maintain coherence through the Class. With an ongoing focus on the White Class, its enemies will emerge and be implicated appropriately.

Jews do not always make sense to us. Why would they destroy America? Yet, they are largely responsible for doing so. While Muslims in Europe will hurt rank-and-file Jews, the Muslim presence suggests European alliance with Jewish elites. We should not have a good deal of faith in how that alliance will work out for Europeans.

. . . . .

All the more urgent it becomes to get to this matter of paradigmatic difference, “differences that make a difference” as opposed to throwing our hands in the air and saying that “nothing is equal.”

Corporations, the military industrial complex and Zionist elites would probably just as soon go with that, too.

I emphasize non-sameness as opposed to non-equality, while understanding the paranoia of those who do not want to take their eyes off the power, and who think that they are trying to divide and conquer by lowly racial conflict. Nevertheless, If we do not recognize broad paradigmatic differences of class (race), the back-and-forth in run-away effect is going to stay in pejorative homeostasis: after classificatory bounds are broken by those who do not care about our classification, “objective men”, perhaps resting on a notion of non-equality, are empowered to farther clear away White men of racial/class consciousness – that is, if paradigmatic difference is swept aside in favor of “non-equalitariansm”, and no critique is made of disingenuous positions and paradigmatic differences.

The equalitarian/non-equalitarian universalistic paradigm runs roughshod over our paradigmatic difference, our incommensurate logics of meaning and action. The narcissism of false comparison is apt to breed vain elitism, obnoxious, unnecessary competition and strife not only within the class, the race, the paradigm, but also between the classes. Hence, misusing and wasting people within and without the class, it breeds contempt. While I can agree that there is a such thing as too much compassion with and without the group, we must first adopt this answer of who we are and then determine how most effectively to deal with our own varying qualities, our traitors and our enemies. It would seem a maximum of cooperation and most efficient antagonisms would be achieved by recognizing paradigmatic difference.

Non-equality is not merely over-simplistic in not sufficiently characterizing the qualities of our White patterns in their varied, ecologically disbursed niches; by merely saying that we are quantifiably “better”, it engages competitions that we should not, as they are a misuse of particular qualities - not acknowledging relatedness, indebtedness, shared interests while instigating reciprocally escalating diatribe within the class.

Moreover, non-equality is not merely an insufficient emancipation from our chains. In fact, it reconstructs the very framework, “the rubric under which we meet,” the paradigm of universal criteria. Inasmuch, the argument of ‘non-equality’ sets in motion logics of competition, unnecessary competition, not only within the White Class but also with other groups – logically entailing the hubris, the narcissism of false comparison from which ensues unnecessary, poorly conceived dispute, reciprocally escalating diatribe, and ultimately, fairly arbitrary war.

Thus, the notion of paradigm becomes crucial in delineating the class as well. The paradigm characterizes its qualitative form and its logics of meaning and action – in this case, the cultural pattern, the class. It delimits our primary accountability and ecology from recognition of other classes in pervasive ecology. The logics of meaning and action of one pattern will match well enough, that is, be commensurate, while another will not, its logics being incommensurate.

To say that all are equal or none are equal, or to say that all races are equal or no races are equal, is overly simplistic and misleading in assuming that all peoples are working in accordance with the same fundamental logics of meaning and action: A logical consequence of this modernistic, universalistic narcissism and its not being true, is misunderstanding, vain comparisons and dispute, even where some parties were not intending to compete.

Equality and non-equality is contrasted with not being the same, sameness and difference as opposed to equality and inequality. Talk of sameness, difference and incommensurability creates patterns of cooperation and complementarity in sensitizing us to look for these qualitative differences that make a difference, incommensurate logics, rather than to ignore them with the didactic elitism, exploitation, power plays and the conflict of falsely compared criteria. This fosters more of an ecological outlook, toward cooperation within the class (race) and negotiation between classes (races).

. . . . .

Content footnotes:

Instigated to compete on an equalitarian basis, a fool would take the Black up on his dare to call him a nigger to his face. Though some Whites will be able to beat him, this sort of competition is incommensurate with our abilities – we can easily take recourse in various strategies, have sundry technology at our disposal, can easily build coalitions to offset his bio-power and defend our way of life –

As for the matter of I.Q. within the class; intelligence perhaps does not only function in the relative linearity of I.Q. but also in patterned ecological disbursement: one brother has a genius level I.Q., a sister passes her NY and NJ Bar exams upon first attempt, another brother contracts lucrative restoration projects of The Amex Building and NYC Post office, while still another has an artistic bent while being vigilant of racial issues.

Trauma of various kinds, both literal and as a matter of pervasive disconfirmation may also explain how assessment of intelligence can be trivial and not take into account re-routing in accordance with various deep, evolutionary pathways.

I have known people with high I.Q.’s who struck me as stupid in important ways – was unimpressed by the theories of the man said to have the world’s highest I.Q. I have seen very high I.Q. people losing track of important matters. Nevertheless, I do not want to take this issue too far, as I am happy for very high I.Q. people to do their thing providing that they do not destroy the ecology of the class

More, low I.Q. Whites, who may have significant qualities and abilities to contribute, may lose out with the argument that I.Q. is our singularly distinguishing attribute as opposed to our full, qualitative distinctions as a White Class.

Blacks are not so easy in all respects. Black musical ability, athletic ability, street smarts and sexual patterns as compared to the abilities that distinguish Whites provide still another example of incommensurability. These abilities are compelling to many and often cited as that which forgives a multitude of sins. Agreed, it is absurd, after all, would we rather have jazz and basketball as opposed to a lovely White woman, reasonable men and an amenable society? Nevertheless, this tendency suggests that one ought not to over-indulge the Blacks-are-so-stupid argument, particularly for the sake of the un-initiated; as there are different kinds of intelligence that are apt to make the argument look bad if unqualified. More, in the context of America, they know the ropes, having been there a long time. Thus, using the argument that they are stupid, you will find yourself saying of the mud-sharks, “she’s stupid, she’s stupid, she’s stupid”, and you will barely stop. Rather than proffering snobbery, probably better to add focus on Black violence, rape and societal decay in particular, in contrast to the safe and amenable White way of life. The broader pattern of White sublimation, its strength and intelligence in a protracted sense is incommensurate and as yet opaque, unarticulated to many.

It was the ultimate Jewish perversion of terms — civil rights, freedom and discrimination — that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even a cursory glance over its statutes reveals obsolescence, disingenuousness and evil.

It does not take so much as a glance at its statutes. One goes into an American institution and reads a sign declaring, “discrimination on the basis of race, creed or gender is prohibited.” Suddenly seeing discrimination rendered pejorative, illegal even, one experiences a vague feeling of dread.

You sense immediately that you are being told not to have eyeballs. You are to be utterly defenseless against biological antagonists, to the destruction of that which is most important.

Even freedom of association, as it does not account for full processual development of those within the class, would not be sufficiently deep by itself, were it allowed. But while that objectivist, rational blindness of “civil rights” was bad enough, Jewish interests perverted its meaning to violate that freedom of association even, with the Civil Rights Act.

Deputy Attorney General Nicholas D. Katzenbach working alongside a Kennedy clan willing to sell out and open its country to catastrophic integration in order to gain power, along with a similarly disposed Lyndon B. Johnson, giving W. Bush a good run for worst president ever, sundry other Jews and objectivist Whites, oversaw departmental operations in desegregating the University of Mississippi in September 1962 and the University of Alabama in June 1963 – where he personally moved Governor Wallace aside to open the door for non-Whites; he also worked with Congress to ensure the passage of the Voting Rights Act and, with significant help from Emmanuel Celler, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The ramifications of these prohibitions against discrimination were horrendous.

We have here in culmination, the ultimate in doublespeak terms: “civil rights” equals being told whose babies we have to pay for, with whom we must study (Brown vs. Board of Education), whose children we have to educate (with precious knowledge tortuously acquired), to whom we must rent, to whom we must sell, whom we must hire, and whom we must serve even in our private businesses – and this is called “freedom.”

The related decision regarding the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter, telling a private business whom they must serve, was always one that caused my mind to glitch, even at a rather young age. M.L. King, with help from Jewish overlords organized Blacks and others, including a few no-class White women, such as Joan Trumpauer Mulholland, to “sit-in” at Woolworth’s and force a legal decision regarding desegregation of its lunch counters. The decision never made sense to me from the moment I heard about it – not in terms of anything that you can call freedom, anyway. Telling Woolworth’s whom they must serve, how, and whom they must hire – that is called “freedom”. It must be the Jewish definition. Yes, freedom marches, the freedom riders, civil rights – of course.

This would seem to be a clear violation of freedom, but Jews are skilled at promoting the self-destruction of others. Whites have been high on objectivism, and Blacks are hyper-assertive.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were at the U.S. Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met.

It is a civil right and its opposite is called illegal discrimination punishable by law. Do not discriminate; do not see the terror you are confronted with; do not see that you are in something like a monkey cage, a planet of the apes (I can tell whether one has or has not been around many Blacks, depending upon their response).

In the article on Kant’s moral system, I mentioned a kind of anguish bordering on torture that I experienced when I was groping after a moral order. That anguish stemmed in large part from America’s rule structure, such as the rules of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in combination with its demographic make-up. Having experienced more than enough of them through forced bussing to go to school with them, I was largely convinced that I did not want anything to do with Blacks. I assumed in my young age that it would be my prerogative one day, and that sane people would make the same choice. How could I believe that others, women even, could do other after seeing such things?

With Blacks rioting in Newark in the summer of 1967, my father’s generation repeating the “greatest generation” mantra ‘you can’t fight City Hall’, the Viet Nam War escalating unintelligibly so that no young person with a penis was immune from the draft, yes, I did have a certain yearning for the San Francisco version of that same summer of ‘67.

Beatle’s guitarist George Harrison did go there but came away with a bad impression of the Be-in. He saw these kids as hideously spotted and vacuum-cleaner faced. Of course, he had taken some bad L.S.D. From our perspective now, it does not seem like such a bad scene, certainly the better option in the tale of two cities, Newark and San Francisco 1967. No wonder I was a bit reluctant to let that go, particularly enchanting it was to me as a child. I was a little disappointed when traditional women and men would say that was “all nonsense” or “the source of our problems”; and I was disconcerted to experience similar antagonism from feminists particularly when the war had ended.

While the dam had not burst through the 60s, 70s, or even into the early 80s, it was a period of ominous buildup, the implications of the rule structure and demographic make-up were pervasive and auguring catastrophic.

With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Great. You cannot discriminate against people that you do not like, whom you find immoral and dangerous.

Once the Viet Nam War had ended, feminism was rearing its ugly head (traditional women were rearing an ugly head too) while some of us men still had some need for being. I had just assumed that everyone would naturally reject forced integration and charges of “racism” but young women did not seem quite as inclined. Why?

Let’s qualify all statements made about young women below to mean, at their worst/most opportune, given defective social structure and pandering. It would be clearly wrong to say that there are not plenty of cool White women. (1)

Thesis: Within the disorder resulting from civil rights rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (you are so wonderful, may I have a date?) emerges with increased significance.

Within the disorder resulting from civil rights rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (you are so wonderful, may I have a date?) emerges with increased significance. Thus, a female bias and selective preferences will be over-valued and not sufficiently corrected by the many ameliorative aspects of the male selective bias.

a) Solicited from many directions.

Absent class bounds the one-up position of young White females re-emerges with increased significance. Occupying a more “addressive” position, they are solicited from many directions, becoming relatively confirmed, oriented, articulate, confident, and authoritative. A young man would make a mistake by trying to clarify the rules through meta-communication (orientative talk about how talk counts) as that is stepping on her toes as gate-keeper. And she can easily take many a brutal recourse should her position be disrespected, weaker sex and all of that. He can barely do anything right if that’s how she wants to see it. She can do many things, arbitrarily, and get away with it. This is why one ought to exercise some caution when denouncing anti-racism. Nevertheless, whereas one perhaps used to seek out a priest, a scientist or a philosopher, now because of her increased one up position, one might as soon seek out a young woman to talk in hopes of appealing to her and salvaging a human world.

b) Gate keeper position and genetic incitement multiplies

Whether it is civil rights of the objectivist kind, or the perverted Jewish kind of the 1964 Act, its rupturing of class bounds, developmental processes and accountability thereof, the natural tendency of young females to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) increases to runaway effect. Particularly absent class bounds, young females have increased incentive to maintain the power of their position as gatekeepers, irrespective of race, to the detriment of the White Class.

Moreover, they will empower men who prevent discrimination and maintain the disorder in order to maintain the position as gate-keepers to the extent they have it; they will even empower men otherwise disposed to racial consciousness inasmuch as they pooh-pooh the issue of race and the merit of White advocates.

Since miscegenation is among their greatest weapons, the same old yin-yang is going to go into effect as they empower “objective men” to clear away White men of racial/class consciousness.

The yin-yang has been in effect as long as I can remember, with the Democrats representing integrationist, mulatto supremacism, and the Republicans representing the dolts that women and Jews can control as if they were trying to say, “We’re so tough; racial consciousness is all nonsense”.

Therefore, sometime within the initial interaction episode, a young man is likely to get a litmus test as she asks what he thinks of Blacks and of racism. If he is honest enough to say that he does not like them, sees good reason for racial discrimination, he is likely to be ostracized. In fact, since miscegenation is one of the biggest threats at her disposal in maintaining that position, she may go to extremes to stigmatize those who challenge it. Naturally, she will be particularly fearful and aggressive to maintain the anti-racist taboo once she has crossed that line. Hence, it is not only Jews and men attempting to be innocent who hazard the White Class.

I understand the paranoia of those who do not want to take their eye off the power, who think that they are trying to divide and conquer by lowly racial conflict; but if the formalities of incommensurate logics of meaning and action, of qualitative, paradigmatic difference are swept aside in favor of the false comparisons of “non-equalitarianism” and no critique is made of disingenuous female positions, the same old cycle is going repeat largely to our detriment.

Okay, men have been inarticulate to their mandate for being – me too, somewhat. Having asserted early on in the gender agendas articlethat male being was warranted through co-evolution, I later fumbled a bit, speculating that perhaps women would not allow for it – doesn’t matter: White Male Being is warranted through survival and our co-evolution with our women for 40,000 years. Innocent until proven guilty, we co-create these women and children Blacks do not.

Nevertheless, even though women and objectivist men are rupturing classification, Jews are not merely pandering objectively to natural inclination, they are instrumental in preventing corrective action.

c) Jewish pandering and objectivist interests combine with de facto need to classify.

Pandering to the addressive position of females, while not exclusive to Jews, is of especial significance coming from them. Powerfully organized as a class, historically threatened by Whites, Jews pander to this interface in order to weaken and demoralize the White class. Thus, they play upon the objectivist upshot of disorder. Like women, Blacks represent a difference, a tropism, too different to ignore within disorder despite prohibition of classifications; yielding a classification that grants them strength in solidarity and coherence. This is farther bolstered by endless Jewish stories of women as victims, women as heroes for advocating Blacks, Blacks in victim status; combining with the fact that Blacks are often emboldened by having less to lose; combining with the fact that Blacks are the opposite of being disadvantaged in some important respects; viz., long standing victimizers, exploiters of Whites and likely to have biological hegemonies, having evolved some 200,000 years prior to the 40,000 years of European differentiation. Not only that, but having evolved in a primordial disorder, their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, leaving females inclined to them and all the more; especially as the orienting organization of classifications are both prohibited and humanly necessary; thus, the high contrast tropism of Black White, as hard to ignore as Male/Female, is farther exacerbated; women pandered to in torrents by Jews on that interface to keep the class disordered and its morale down.

Therefore, despite obvious, broad destruction to the class, ecology and accountability, and despite would-be corrective action, as most White men naturally, and with good reason, hate miscegenating White women, the pairing with this aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive people will increase, given the present rule structure. White men are prevented from doing anything about it largely due to the agency of Jewish machinations in interface with young females and objectivists within the disordered situation, absent racial classificatory bounds.

While Jews are not solely responsible for promoting miscegenation, they are largely so. Even more significantly, they are responsible for preventing White men from doing anything about it.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Civil rights rupture developmental processes and the ecological pattern disbursement that would otherwise be managed and maintained by the class. With equality/non-equality being made central, as opposed to classification and maintenance of paradigmatic differences that make a formal difference, incommensurate logics of meaning and action are improperly meshed to the detriment of marginal Whites, and liable to create the narcissism of false comparison, unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating destruction.

For bringing to bear Black violence and destruction to the culmination of our 40,000 years of evolution, miscegenators and their instigators are no better; rather they are highly analogous to rapists and pedophiles; they might be considered accordingly. A scientistic view would say miscegenation is a naturally occurring fact. Rape and child molestation may be natural inclinations as well, but we do not accept them; rather we seek social injunction. In this example, the agency of a social constructionist view is superior to the mere causality of a scientistic view.

If people are going to keep going around making equality a straw man and non-equality the thing as opposed to paradigmatic difference(s) and race (class) being the matter, we’re going to create false comparisons and unnecessary, counter productive conflict; i.e., not that we should seek to avoid all conflict necessarily, but we do want the chips to fall on our side. (2)

White men are warranted to Be as the White Class is warranted to Be by dint of their survival and co-evolution over the course of 40,000 years. Innocent until proven guilty, we make White women and children. Moreover, males have an underrated selective bias, preferring cooperative and thoughtful woman (3). Even the asymmetry of White female beauty that White men have co-created is a sign of genetic advance and harmonious niche adaptation to environment.

Normal White men don’t create the unnecessary wars, aren’t the ones exploiting others with fortune 500 companies, are not the ones over populating the world. Nevertheless, White men who are in developmental stages, on basic motivational levels seeking being, are going to be out of luck absent the class bounds. Our White class is seeking Being as well. It is struggling to assert the warrant to exist. It is the righteous fight, but fight smart and look toward the power, White man.

Nevertheless, absent class bounds and subject to the throws of Jewish machinations, the large majority of White men are going to get screwed by those after “actualization” – like Malcolm X quoting Elijah Muhammad that the Black Man will rule – no thanks. The Black Power movement was after actualization and incommensurate with White male Being as well.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a rupturing of the White Class. After a laugh, cry or puke, settle down to see that it is evil.

(1) I love women, they are veritably my religion – 14 Words – especially in a racially homogeneous situation – though not as much in mixed one: With things being so foul, and their being so incredulous as to how I could be flustered over a rule structure and demographically mixed situation that was clearly auguring catastrophe, I had to think about it. While there are ways in which women can legitimately share power, many women, young in particular, do not merit the sort of power that they wield within the disordered context of modernity.

I am not promoting only traditional roles for women. Don’t you want more Virginia Abernethys? I do. It only requires the Class and that they undergo a bit more rigor on basic levels. Conversely, a bit more Being for men in exchange for maintaining the class – and it is warranted. White men’s existence warranted as is The White Class.

(2) In fact, encouraging the natural animosity that Black women have toward White women taking Black men is a good angle, not only in discouraging such pairings, but also in agitating to bring the Jewish system down which is so uncaring, having broached our most sacred and important human concern, our close personal relationships as they bear upon our survival. The beaming smiles of approval that I have received from Black women in those times when I antagonized interracial couples is an irony that stays with me. The “sisters” (Black women) obviously will not care too much about the White women who take their men. White men do not want Black women; we sense that it is going horribly backwards: their ugly symmetry a sign of primitive undifferentiation, imperviousness to environment and social concerns, dispensation to thoughtless overgrazing. I find it relatively effective to agree with interracial couples that Black women are indeed, ugly. It tends to confuse them as the insulted party is not there; after all, what is he doing with a White woman if Black women are so great? (obviously, exercise discretion – you may not want to say “ugly”, you might best say nothing in some cases). If they will, let these enraged Black women be allies in taking down the Jewish system {which has broached our most sacred, our close personal relationships – its total disregard for that which is most important to us, our co-evolutionary women. Nevertheless, when listening to David Duke interview Patricia McAllister, what struck me was her claim that Blacks ought to have half of America. Do you see what I mean by hyper-assertive? For all the money and treasures they have taken form us, the destruction wrought upon us, they should have half of America… hmm.

(3) As opposed to the female/Nietszchean perspective which values men big and strong exclusively, impervious and undaunted no matter what, Negroes with good digestive tracts.That may explain why the N word is prohibited by the female gate keeper’s union – the N word is not ok, but Himmler was well reasoned in wanting to genocide Poles – after all, the women are beautiful; we cannot have that when Black women have the humility to be so non-threatening – so often butt ugly.

When our advocates call our enemies “The Left” they are making a crucial mistake – obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

They are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations, such as perversion of the terms.

People within the class, contributing diverse skills could make it stronger – “diversity” might be “strength” in that way.

Biodiversity in terms of assuring genetic flexibility and the likelihood of survival through various contingencies is certainly advisable, including our separate difference and differences as Whites.

But the merit of biodiversity among our people and biodiversity from other groups within the world is transformed into a term “diversity”, which of course [?], means integration.

“Multi-cultural”, a term that would seem to appeal to the sovereign maintenance of different cultures in the world is perverted into a term meaning integration into a mono-cultural world.

Marginals within the class could have more perspective on our systemic needs (knowing where the shoe pinches), and more of a vested interest in ecological, systemic maintenance of the class; but those outside or inasmuch induced to be antagonistic to the class are called, “marginals.”

Puerile female incitement to genetic competition might create friendly competition within the class, but is pandered to without the class and called White men’s incitement of racial hatred.

We would rather not be diverse from Asians, Arabs, Mestizos and Africans? Of course we would. We want to encourage them to integrate with us, become Westernized and envelop us? Of course Not. Nevertheless, Jewish academics and political planners have blurred the lines of diversity and marginals, particularly those outside the class – entailing their deleterious, non-ecological integration with us – putting the world on its present course of systemic runaway headed for catastrophe. Thus, the White Class serves the world as well as itself in performing the duty of maintaining the separate distinction of itself from other classes (i.e., races) in systemic corrective to Jewish machinations.

Though we cannot merely do as we will to non-Whites toward that end, we should work toward ways of their humane deportation and separation, as we are indeed, warranted to defend the relative interests of our class against population explosion and its incursion upon our people, our habitats. Nevertheless, while Jewish elitists are pandering, instigating and preventing us from taking up the relative interests of our classification; so too are pseudo objectivists.

When the Right talks in terms of quantities not accountable to qualitative differences, paradigmatic differences, ecological niches, relative interests of the class, it is culpable as well.

Taking our hermeneutic circle back to this second problem and making its distinction further -

In distinction from Rightist objectivism, The White Class.

So long as it serves the relative, relational interests of our class, rightist type preoccupation with disciplines pursuing objective abstractions beyond or within biological nature is valid, often yielding important “objective” scientific results. But as we’ve pointed out, in truth, it never fully exists for us; in particular as people are mammals, caring about relationships. But moreover, objectivity always needs to be gauged against the Left’s human sized classification as we must beware that the quantifying metaphors of physics not breach the optimal requirements of biology. As A and B observed: people are biological creatures, requiring optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction, quantifiable excesses and deficiencies becoming toxic. Biological nature rarely works within lethal variables; we do not eat because we are starving, we eat as we are hungry.

We do not even necessarily fight for the fact that extinction is forecast and because our race is subject to statistically more violence. As Habermas observed, we do not tend to learn and be motivated unless we can see our subjective interests involved. Our subjective interest, seeing what good it is for us to pursue the relative interests of the White Class, needs to connect. That is one reason why the 14 words is effective, it advocates White survival and subjective interests at the same time. We might rather, fight because our women, our co-evolutionary women, land and property are being taken by apes; because we would receive just reward by partaking in and fighting on behalf of our relative class.

Classification could provide the context for those subjective real life processes, ecology and accountability. However, while both Jews and disingenuous Rightists exploit and pervert objectivist values against our classification; Whites who demonize the Left, per se, are complicit, albeit perhaps unwittingly, with its obstruction as well. Thus, clarifying this central need of class falls in line with Dr. Sunic’s semantic disentangling project: since the necessary classification of our overall process, discrimination on its basis and acting accordingly is being blocked, stigmatized as ‘leftist’, critically analyzed as ‘ethnocentric’ and criminalized as ‘racist.’

Upon “de-obfuscating” these attributions it becomes clear

While striving after White homelands (plural), we need to re-establish classification of Whites and assert our relative, relational interests in revolutionary contrast to our centuries long customs: pseudo objectivism, universalism, Christianity, scientism capitalism, liberalism, sheer individualism. These pursuits being void of context, void of class, broach accountability and ecology. They have us treating non-Whites as being the same as us, with interests that we value equally if not more to our own because we are supposedly innocent and objectively motivated, as opposed to relative, relational and particularly accountable to the White Class.

Unless we want to deny the out of Africa theory we are marking a distinguishing classification to some extent. However, it is not necessary to deny, as it is no compliment to them and no insult to us. We might just as well say that we have them in our past, their traits resurfacing where necessary and we do not want to go back (e.g., to their short sighted aggression and irresponsible breeding). Classifying in spite of the fact that we can, unfortunately, breed with other races, is not wrong to do, on the contrary, it is more than valid – that is our solution: the manageable means of accountability and ecology. It is not a mere construct – it is real - warrantably assertable and operationally verifiable.

Neither can we avoid classifying whether deliberately or de facto. In modernity’s disordering prohibition of classification that often devolves simply to male/female (subject next time). But unlike that rightist objectivism, in which classifications are an upshot caused by mere forces of nature, deliberate classification rather sets in motion the course of agency – the means to construct ourselves as a people: in classifying ourselves, we establish accountability, coherence, agency and warrant.

Nor is it arbitrary and superficial. Defining who we are, who our class is, is not difficult, especially if the national and regional boundaries are respected: We are persons evolved in the context of Europe (and Russia) over the course of 40,000 years, with a bit of Neanderthal, out of Africa for a longer time. In defining who ‘we’ and ‘they’ are, Giles made the good suggestion that we ought to call ourselves Europeans (meaning differentiated indigenously in the context of Europe), them Africans, Israelis, and various Asians. There was also a suggestion for a biological constitution. I concur. We may declare our DNA our nation and connect it to various points of land eventually, even if not contiguous, as Alaska is apart from the continental U.S. – in fact, that would be tactically better, safer. Better still, this biological nation should be based on an updated Articles of Confederation (TT). However small to begin, it is possible. We can easily get enough people to join, and it does not require relinquishing current citizenship, national or regional distinctions. Before long, our thinkers will find a way to ratify our nation before the world – we will become powerful and agile, managing a hermeneutic process between momentary observations of our DNA and its protracted expressions organized of The Class.

A non-Jewish Left, The White Class, is only an oxymoron according to the definition of the Left that people have been maneuvered into by Jewish academics and political planners. Jews want us to be defined as Rightist – in the speculation of a universal religion, anti-social, pseudo-objective individualists – because it is weak and amoral; they want to portray us on the side of the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, us to seem like the force behind the military industrial complex and not the Zionists. They want us to be Rightists. Not Leftists who organize on the basis of the White Class as a full social group, with relative, relational accountability to and from those on top to those in more fundamental stages of developmental (within the life time) and evolutionary (beyond the lifetime), process.

Nevertheless, White traitors fall outside the class by dint of being traitors and are probably our worst enemy. The Right says I’m better therefore you can die, while the Left says you might be better at one thing, but your life is not mutually exclusive to mine, and I can do something else. The egghead who can invent a mathematical formula that facilitates space travel is providing an account, of sorts, but insufficient if he unnecessarily cuts himself off from the flexibility of a sustaining network and process: parentage, women, young, farmers, technicians, soldiers and environment. More, through evolution, his i.q. may in fact have mutated from the sublimation and corresponding cooperation which is as likely as that to be responsible for the relatively non-violent and amenable day to day White way of life – one of our strongest points.

There is nothing idealistic about it: accountability is entailed straight away in the moment we classify ourselves. Separatism is a first step, separatism is an ultimate aim and separatism is always possible. It is entirely possible to coordinate and it is entirely consistent, in sync with taking on Zog, the corporate plutocracy and the military industrial complex. It would call for manageable sub-classifications, of course: but neither are the nations, states, regions, unions, guilds and lone agents contradictory of White Leftism – on the contrary. More, so long as it does not transcend the well being of the class and its habitats, the White Left is not contradictory to morals or other intangibles, individualism, languages, creativity, achievement. Nor tangibles, such as public and private property, our mutual habitat, free enterprise and industry; a reasonable amount of wealth and a reasonable social safety net mutually. Further, in recognizing paradigmatic, qualitative difference of patterns among and between the classes (races) of people, we have the means of cooperative negotiation as opposed to a narcissistic vision of equality – non-equality that instigates reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. It is not that I personally care for non-Whites and traitors – I don’t; and punishment is indeed, in order – but one does have to pick their fights and there does come a point where fighting is impractical. Note that we are subsuming Darwinism under a broader naturalism of classificatory ecology.

Of our agency, The White Left is for us to define. It is not as much on an economic basis. Rich White people have bad will particularly as they are not accountable to Whites. While that might be almost all of the time, it has more to do with their being traitors than because they have money. The White Left could allow for reasonable wealth – maybe after 5 million, one would be taxed 75% ? We’ll work these matters out. See Bowery, for example, on homestead land tax exemptions; land ownership beyond that amount would be subject to a tax that could fund a space program, even. And we need not necessarily provide a safety net much beyond subsistence, food, shelter and heat; some training, a menial job.

The White Class does not contradict nationalism – excluding Jews from leftism and nationalism is NOT an oxymoron by definition. Can you say “national socialism?” It was leftist until the night of the long knives when they went over the top and became elitist, capitalist empire builders (see Matt Johnson on, “it’s empire building, not nationalism that makes war”); too bad coordinating the expulsion of Jews from Europe and Russia could not have been the extent of their dealings with the rest of Europe. The White Class is commensurate with RamzPaul’s emphasis here that nationalism can, in fact, resolve many issues. Having frequently been irritated myself, by the “northern” European thing, as in, only people above he 40th parallel are European, or “White”, I can agree, emphatically, that we can all be for Sweden being Swedish, southern European nations being discretely their own, etc.

This could also accommodate non-biological diversity as DeBenoist seeks; he apparently wants to preserve his language and the fine variety of his French culture; we can agree to that, but ultimately, we should not accept passive resignation for non-Europeans living within France or anywhere in the European continent. If one cherishes cultural expressions while accepting a situation that facilitates the disgusting pairing of French women with Africans, they are throwing the baby out with the bath water and we must side with French Whites more radical. We are willing to help greatly, but not for allowing that kind of diversity to spread to the rest of Europe. We value French women and men, not mulattos speaking French. At the same time, we need not exploit and destroy other peoples and environs; but may leave them alone providing they do not violate our (mutual) habitat and freedom from association with them. The nations and regions of Europe can have a similar scale and be coordinated with those White states among the freely chosen Laboratory of The States as Bowery proposes for The U.S. However, the European nations need to provide for the slightly different function of accountability to the deep ecology of their indigenous peoples. Irrespective of expanse or obstacles, sovereign White nations, regions, and states may be coordinated among the White Class.

Conclusion

When our advocates go on about “the Left, the Left, the Left”, on the one hand, they are obfuscating the agency of our greatest antagonist, the agency of Jewish machination, whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC. And on the other hand they are driving us right where Jewish academic and political planners want us to go – into the Right – which is the other source of our destruction – the Rightist quest for objective innocence, whether naive or worse, a pretense of objective innocence in order to avoid accountability. Not being leftists blocks resolution to our problem, a problem that Kant had tried and failed to solve, that of empiricism’s upshot, overly severe relativism – which is rectified by the hermeneutic process, classifying the ongoing process by which we gauge our systemic pattern, delimiting our relative interests, and particular accountability as The White Class.

When we say the White Class, meaning people of native European extraction, not Jews and Mulattos with Passports, there is no mistaking, no ambiguity. We are radicals, connecting the radix of our roots to the extremities of our branches, our farther reaches.

We need a moral order of that – our race, our class, is our religion – it centers on the 14 Words – it is transcendent, forward looking, palpable and practical.

We may declare our nation – This is the end of the one world order and the beginning of White sovereignty. Our DNA is our nation.

* * * * *

Note: When listening to our advocates, you might try, for your own clarity (and sanity) substituting the word “liberal”, in terms of its function, openness and caring for outsiders, when you hear them use the word, “left”, and you’ll find that it works fine conceptually. Liberalism’s actual negative meaning is more correct than leftism in terms of describing our problem – as a liberal, one is either naively subject to integrationism at the behest of an elitist group or subject to the integration of bio-power elitists – note that elite may have a positive connotation for some, but not elitism, elitists. It is true, however, that charging others with Liberalism tends to render one stodgy; backward sounding and worse; it poses the continual ground yielding, reactive logic of old-fashioned conservatism as its response. Thus, in line with Kurtagic’s marketing program of image appeal, another word for its meaning, i.e. reckless openness to other cultures, should be supplied – agreed, but not the Left.

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left. They still are on the Left when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.”

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his articleWomen on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e., he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have. Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word; that is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is too problematic, as I discuss in footnote (1), it has a decided image problem, stodgy and logically entails ground yielding conservatism in response; thus another term should be supplied – but not the Left.

When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of antisemitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (nearly 2,000 years), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of antisemitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

. . .

As most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue

For good reason: as with all normal White people, I had been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as a leftist: I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define terms through the pattern of how people are using a term: Notice that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That is characteristic of the Right for a reason – they are not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such. With the Wall Street protests and our struggle’s growing recognition of the military industrial complex, the corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more; for our environment; growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance not to identify with the phony “Left”, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.

When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations – hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there.

At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.

While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.

Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates also obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.

When we refer to ourselves as a people, we are classifying. The Left is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. Sound familiar? We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists. Why? Because we are advocating a people, not objective facts, not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. And being mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, preferably by White people.

In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivity independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.

If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).

Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to our class as such, would entail two-way accountability to our class straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside The White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable

On the other hand, when we are made averse to Leftism, we are blocked from classifying ourselves as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic difference, a differences that make a difference from other groups, our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.

Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.”

When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left” – whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC

Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’

Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability

Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivity which would make quick work of accountability – whether through a naïve whish to be innocent through objectivity or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivity.

While a White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – we are caused, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature, or seeking account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

Michael O’Meara does make an excellent point that self-destruction is inherent within the Western ways that Jews are already exploiting – I would say viz., objectivism, scientism, liberalism, Christianity, universalism, capitalism – these things which pose as “innocent” are largely naïve or disingenuous by definition in not calling for accountability to relative and subjective interests as a White class; and narcissistically not recognizing the relative/subjective interests of others (e.g., Muslims, Blacks, Asians) as a class; we would thus be taken advantage of, it would lead to our destruction, Jews or not.

While understandable, the wish to transcend relative and relational interests of the class, into the innocence and power gambit of sheer objectivist pursuit creates a narcissistic, hyper-relativistic upshot. In pursuing innocence of pure criteria, void of relative, relational and subjective interests, we limit accountability, reduce comparisons between people to singular, non-qualitative criteria, comparing, blending what are in fact paradigmatic differences, incommensurate logics of meaning and action between various peoples – typically to disastrous effect.

The Right is enamored of enlightenment objectivism, which reached its height in Descartes’ quest for a fixed logic transcendent of nature; and its depth in the empiricism of Locke, trying to find fixed foundational laws within nature. Locke was motivated by empiricism as an argument against the English Aristocratic class, which he resented for its superior educational opportunities. He asserted thus, that as each individual has the same perceptions that social classifications are a fiction of the mind and should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights – that prejudice against classification of peoples was written into the U.S. Constitution, rupturing relations and development processes, leaving us weak to collectively organized enemies, such as Jews.

The means of solution

Kant tried and failed to resolve the problems of Cartesianism and Lockeatine empiricism by integrating it on universal foundational principles. It is rectified indeed, however, with the hermeneutic process, an optimizing, tacking back and forth as need be between verification of smaller units of analysis, such as our DNA and its relation to our environment, to the more protracted and patterned facets of our DNA’s expressions, relations encompassed in social classification; the answer in a word, is to re-establish the relative and relational interests of social classification – a people centric perspective: a tree may make a noise when falling in the woods but if there are no (White) people left to hear it, or talk about it, may as well not make a noise for all it matters to us – thus, we re-assert Whites as a Classification in particular, The White Class comprehending those of native European extraction, their sub-nations, regions (and not others) as the means and the solution. At the same time, observing Bateson’s correction of Darwinism, that the organism plus environment is the unit of survival – the organism which destroys its environment, it’s habitat, destroys itself.

For Kant, who had not rid himself of Cartesianism, good will was to treat every individual as an end in them self; for us, rather, the White Class and its environment ought to be treated as the relational, relative end in itself – it is those who fight on behalf of Whites, who tactfully flee on behalf of Whites or who stealthily infiltrate on behalf of Whites; those who respect the quality of differences that make a cooperative difference among the White class and toward other peoples who are of good will; as opposed to narcissistic comparisons of equality which entail unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. Succinctly, a White Class would call for more accountability to and from our individual members; and a more general sort of accountability to environment and non-Whites as a class – that we neither exploit them nor abet their over-population and incursion upon us.

Relative, relational separatism is always possible, is a first step, as well as our ultimate aim. If some of our members are better in some ways, and it helps, great! But we do not need that argument for separatism. In essence, we want to be separate, not to lord ourselves over and exploit others. That is a difference between White elitists and White Leftist Separatists, The White Class.

Notes

1) I am indebted to TT Metzger for encouraging a leftist outlook; I had been stuck in the neither left nor right trap until he got me to thinking. He also made the best enhancement to the “ship of praxis” – that its big leading gun ought to be the issue of population as it relates to environment.

In The Sunic Journal of October 18th, on Christian Zionism, Kevin MacDonald expressed frustration over Christianity’s hold on people, particularly being of concern as it tends to be a universalizing religion, not especially concerned for Whites as a group, thusly leaving Whites susceptible to a demographic decline perhaps into extinction even. That vulnerability is in part due to Christianity’s ties to Judaism; by contrast to Christianity’s being potentially about just anyone who might take it up, Judaism is a religion which is concerned basically for the well being of an exclusive nation – Israel, and an exclusive people, Jews – with that, they have undertaken machinations to use the vulnerability of Christianity; they have also been able to overcome what anti-Jewish defenses that exist in the text and tradition of Christianity.

In later weeks I will discuss non-religious facets to an overall quest for innocence – of which Christianity is a part – that leave us vulnerable as a group.

However, since Professor MacDonald is searching for means to encourage Whites to adopt religious ways that will conform to reality and serve their own interests as Whites, I will begin with some of the things that brought me around. You see, I went through the infamous “phase” in my early twenties; while people who are earnestly attempting to practice Christianity will hate to hear it called a phase, some of the things that brought me around were as follows:

I visited a few evangelical and fundamentalists churches and felt a bit foolish. But you know? Some things about life were so horrible to me that I almost had to believe that Christianity was true; some things about life were like some kind of torture. I needed some kind of agreement with people over the things that I cared about – things should be better, clearly. So I pressed on with my personal evangelizing for and of the true Christianity – making a fool of myself; would be more embarrassed: if I did not look back in empathy and realize that I could not simply shrug off 2,000 years of European tradition, all the sacrifice, all the devotion, as if it were nothing; and if I did not know that I was trying to do the right thing – as are you, Christian readership.

In a lecture by Professor Rom Harré from Oxford, he discussed morals with utmost sincerity. I was able to understand that morals are indeed, the most important thing in the world; and he added that people need moral orders – but moral orders, the plurality of the term, was a large clue in my liberation from mere tradition, custom and habit – it meant that there were different moral systems; and one might seek one out that serves those interests which they hope to realize. Ultimately, I would begin to consider a moral order that would circumscribe and serve the interests of Whites, and by that I mean persons of indigenous European descent.

But prior to that was another crucial step in liberating me from the customs and habits of traditional religion – The moral system of the Christian thinker, Immanuel Kant. It provided, in all honesty, a more clear, sensible, fair and intelligible rationale than what I had read in the Christian text; but one that did not in all ways correspond with what was in the Christian text. Since it helped me, I am hopeful that it will help others in taking a step to moral order conducive to their own interests as Whites, while not exactly being guilty to others, either. Now, do not beat me up because Kant was talking in those universalistic terms. First things first; all thinkers have to take Kant into account. I have updated his system with the contemporary philosophical considerations of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant; I will move toward more specifically native European interests in subsequent discussions.

Further interesting notes – When not obsequiously holding the door for the late Kara Kennedy after “Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy” classes at Tufts, I took religion classes as something I might cope with, if nothing else; including a class in critical bible study which I’d taken expecting my earnestness to be reinforced, not contradicted: but the obvious man made-ness of the Bible became apparent – for example, The Revelation had to have had at least four different authors. There are sundry other examples of obvious fabrication – i.e., definitely not the hand of god. One of my religion professors was not especially patient with my “phase”. He asked me flippantly, “Did you read all the Kant?” I answered “No, only the last chapter as you’d assigned, on ‘religious intolerance’ being the greatest ignorance.” He grunted and dismissed me in frustration. But you see, at that point I did not want to hear that my devotion could be considered ignorant, because I was well meaning indeed. Maybe with a little more patience, I’d have come back to it sooner. I cannot say that I did not try though, as some things were shining in that Kant – so, what did I do? I went to the library, looked at it again and realizing that it was something I’d need, in my rash state of mind, I attempted to steal the book. Electronic door security detectors-sensors were new then and the buzzer caught me – how embarrassing! And ironic – it is the one book that will tell you that you should never steal.

It was not until five years later that I picked up the book again and it made the worst of the torture stop. So, if you have not read it already, I can save you some time and anguish, having put it here in updated and capsule form.

Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Warrant and Agency

It is vogue nowadays to deride Immanuel Kant as the quintessential “universalizer”, now that twentieth century science, mathematics and philosophy have sufficiently disproved what Kant considered to be “the imperative foundation of universal principles, always good for all people and all circumstances.” The disproving of Kant’s quest does not, however, eliminate the usefulness of his system as a practical topoi – or framework in simpler English. Here is a practical update of his framework, using the contemporary philosophical concerns of Coherence, Accountability, Warrant and Agency.

I. Principles versus Sensibilities: Principles are guidelines and ideal rules which persons maintain to give them character and coherence. Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; it means to make sense of things in a consistent manner. In following up upon principles set forth, one may be Accountable, viz. able to provide explanations of their actions for responsible, defensive reasons; and one may establish Warrant, the credibility for proactive endeavor. E.g., if one’s actions are misunderstood or worse, false and negative accusations are made against them, they can refer back to the principles that they following and be sure of them self. Kant calls this being sure of oneself, ‘freedom‘; as such, one is freed from Arbitrariness: the confusion of natural flux; false and negative accusations; trivialities; and, of especial importance, freed from natural inclinations which may pull them in a negative direction. Finally, in that regard, as has been pointed out since Kant’s time (e.g. by Rom Harré in personal conversation), in referring back to these principles, one establishes their self Agency, proving that they are the causal agents of their own actions. Now, if one gets carried away with principles, Speculation, to the point where they are not dealing with sensible reality, they can always refer back to sensible evidences. However, as it is easier to attend to sensible evidence than it is to abide by principles and to restore credibility in an un-kept principle, it is better to err in the direction of principles.

The most fundamental principle, “unanimity“, means to think in agreement with one’s self; e.g., if one comes to a conflict, one should think first of why one’s actions and words might be correct, not why they might be wrong. Coherence, Accountability and Agency are begun in this principle straight away.

II. A) Common Morals B) Popular Philosophy C) Principled Philosophy

A) Common Morals: As a matter of practical convenience, people usually start out accepting implicitly, “first principles” (e.g., don’t steal, don’t lie, be monogamous), common moral ideas that it is worthwhile to be good, fair and decent. Then myriad and pervasive influences tend to divert them from first principles. That, Kant calls -

B) Popular Philosophy: It is ubiquitous. People will cite many excuses for deviating from common morals: 1. Typical of these excuses is the statement, “everybody does it;” but the mere popularity of a notion, Kant would observe, does not provide an excuse to violate first principles (consensus can be wrong). Beyond mere conformity to popular consensus, however, there are more cynical and even less accountable deviations from first principles 2. Perhaps most venal is the claim of ‘scientific objectivity’, which disingenuously denies accountability for the personal choices of its practitioners and their subjects; e.g., ‘it’s just human nature.’ 3. People will cite religion, even, as in the statement, ‘it’s just god’s will” 4. Or, people may claim that the complex relativity of their existential situation would not allow them to act in accordance with first principles, when, in fact, they could have; 5. Finally, there is the practice of didactically reversing a first principle (as in teaching through reverse psychology) under the rubric of “teaching”, exemplified in the statement, “it was really for your own good”.

In any case, their arguments for breaking with common morals are of two kinds: “that’s just the [objective] way it is” or “that’s just my/their [relative] circumstances.” Inasmuch, for the brevity of their personal accountability (“that’s just”…), they are not well warranted, and typically not, in their assertions.

C) Principled Philosophy: To correct the negative effects of popular consensus, Kant would proffer that we re-establish our first principles on a universal foundation. Accordingly, we must test our principles by asking the universal question of them, ‘can this principle always be good for everyone?’ In practice, that means, treating people as ends in themselves – in contrast to ‘treating people as the mere means through which other things pass, as strict attendance to logics of nature, otherworldly ideas (Tillich, 1961) or technology would have it – Kant calls this, the most important principle, “good will“. Without good will: intelligence, beauty and fortune only make a person more terrible.

Despite this fine reasoning, it is true enough that Kant has been solidly refuted in seeking universal foundations. Nevertheless, as a practical outline, it is brilliant of itself and of practical use as criteria toward being Coherent, Accountable and establishing Warrant (all three necessary to establishing individuality and agency) in the confusing flux of contemporary society.

Part of what Kant tried and failed to do with his a-priori (universal foundations outside of nature) was to save the world from empiricism.

This is still one of our major problems, as Whites; as the empiricism of Kant’s predecessor, John Locke’s prejudice against classifications, his treating them as fictions which should give way to empirically based sensory impressions of individuals, was canonized as Civil Individual Rights in The U.S. Constitution. This sanctified rupturing of group responsibility – for prime example, “the White race” – has left us susceptible to exploitation and manipulation (especially by you know who).

It is to be corrected by hermeneutic tacking back and forth, managing the White Class from observations more closely read (sensible), such as D.N.A. sequences, to broader historical and temporal patterns, encompassed with narrative and other (speculative) conceptualization.

Look for my articles on coming Saturdays. I will be discussing:

“The Left” is a terribly mistaken code word for Jews

Addendum on Classification, Individuation and Gender

Sex as Sacrament vs. Sex as Celebration

…and more

Daniel Sienkiewicz is a White separatist expat from the Unite States lurking in Eastern Europe, a VoR writer and a guest of the Sunic Journal. Email him.

The Shanghai Cooperation organization is China’s weapon in Central Asia, one of the world’s most strategic regions. Her goal is to build a political and economic bloc to challenge the West.

As Marxism fled the Soviet Union, Central Asia became the next set of partially developed states to be sought by the major powers. Central Asia remains significant due to its oil and natural gas reserves, and, just as important, the pipelines from Russia and Iran crossing the area, dumping out in China to the east and the Syrian port cities in the west. Whoever controls this region will become one of the globe’s energy brokers. System-instigated riots in Syria have to do with a) eliminating Israel’s primary local enemy, armed by the Russians and b) take the important, Russian outfitted port cities such as Lattakia.

The Syrian port cities are some of the most significant elements in that economy and connect the Syrian economy to the Iranian and other states in Central Asia. Not only are these of immense strategic importance, but they are also ultra-modern due to Russian investment in its infrastructure. Israel began to publicly worry in the early 1990s as Russo-Syrian scientific and industrial teams discovered more and more sources of petroleum in this country once thought to be almost totally devoid of oil. The state run Syrian oil firms operate three major transport hubs, two on the Mediterranean and one at Lattakia. When Syria began supplying oil and gas to Lebanon, hence solidifying her importance over that strategic country, Israel responded with threats, and eventually, the creation of riots and “civic protests.” Since the Syrian transport hubs and oil firms were state owned, System economists in the US began speaking of the “building of civil society” in Syria. As the industry of Syria grew, Bashar al-Assad went from “reformer” to “tyrant” almost overnight.

One would think that these facts, while significant in themselves, would have nothing to do with China or Central Asia. But these are central facts for the creation of a new trading bloc. The US never made “war” on the USSR. Most Soviet electricity, oil production and electronics were supplied by the US and NATO during the “Cold War.” The US only got upset when the Soviets threatened to create a new bloc of trade run by her, and not the US and her banks. Separating China from the USSR was quickly considered an important priority during the Eisenhower administration and after. The US sought to build up China to use as a counterweight against any threat of an alternative, non-US controlled trading bloc. Throughout this period of the “Cold War,” US-USSR-China trade reached trillions of dollars. Soon, the US sponsored China’s introduction to the UN Security Council as Taiwan was reduced to a “rogue state.”

Syria and her important port cities became central for Chinese penetration into Central Asia. This is partially because Syria, Russia, Iran and Kazakhstan were basically allies of the new Chinese empire since the mid 1990s or so, seeing her as a means of helping create the multi-polar world necessary to eliminate American hegemony. Iran, Armenia and Russia have been in the sights of both the American neocon and neolib movements since the end of the “Cold War.” But as of 2011, the Regime sees its worst fears being realized: a manifest alliance of what Bush laughably called the “Axis of Evil,” which refers to those states who a) actually want to control their own economic destiny, b) are enemies of Israel and the US, and are c) non-liberal in their governments.

China crated the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” in 2001 to institutionalize its role in Central Asia, and has Russia and most Central Asian states as members. Its purpose is to create the conditions for economic and military coordination and cooperation among its signatories and eventually, to create a single large trading bloc. Nothing could have been worse for the elites in industry, banking and oil in the west. A western world, largely bankrupt, is unable to defeat such a coalition militarily, diplomatically or economically. The only option was the media-academia alliance to pour scorn over these states and their tyranny. The west supplied weapons to Azerbaijan against Armenia, stoked civil unrest in Iran and Syria, and, according to NATO, is planning a suicidal military mission against Syria. Recent threats made by Iran against Azerbaijan are largely influenced by the strong Mossad/CIA presence in the former southern regions of the USSR.

Recent leaked documents speak volumes about the creation of an Islamic Central Asia by the CIA. The Turkish as well as Pakistani press reported on CIA activities in Turkey:

Last year, during an immigration court case involving Turkish Islamic Leader, Fetullah Gulen, US prosecutors exposed an illegal, covert, CIA operation involving the intentional Islamization of Central Asia. This operation has been ongoing since the fall of the Soviet Union in an ongoing Cold War to control the vast energy resources of the region – Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan – estimated to be worth $3 trillion.

Recent Russian intelligence documents also say the same. In fact, a Pakistani newspaper said this recently about the situation:

FSB head Nikolay Patrushev has mentioned the names of these companies and foundations, saying, ‘The brotherhood engages in anti-Russian activities via two companies, Serhad and Eflak, as well as foundations such as Toros, Tolerans and Ufuk.’ Patrushev has accused the brotherhood of conducting pan-Turkish propaganda, of trying to convert Russian youths to Islam by sowing the seeds of enmity, and of engaging in certain lobbying activities. These companies and foundations have turned up in the internet site of Fethullah Gulen, alleged leader of the Nurcu religious community currently living in the United States who is a defendant in several court cases in Turkey, accused of engaging in anti-secularist activities.

It is reasonable to suppose that this money is being aimed at China as much as Russia.

Both the Chinese and the Russians are active in the region, but Russia has the upper hand due to the fact that the Central Asian states were at one time a part of the Soviet Union. Political science professor Chien-peng Chung writes that the Chinese government seeks influence, if not control, in this region to battle the “three evils” of international politics: fundamentalism, separatism and terror. Given the large Islamic populations of these areas, such fears are not entirely unjustified.

Former FBI translator Sybel Edmunds recent stated to a reporter:

Given the history, and the distrust of the West, the US realized that it couldn’t get direct control, and therefore would need to use a proxy to gain control quickly and effectively. Turkey was the perfect proxy; a NATO ally and a puppet regime. Turkey shares the same heritage/race as the entire population of Central Asia, the same language (Turkic), the same religion (Sunni Islam), and of course, the strategic location and proximity.

This started more than a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, using Turkish operatives, Saudi partners and Pakistani allies, furthering this objective in the name of Islam.

At the same time, the Chinese are very concerned about terror attacks in the west of the country, a part of China that is largely Islamic and underdeveloped. The Chinese government has regularly accused terror groups of coming into the country from Central Asia with a separatist agenda. The Chinese, according to Chien-peng Chung, are primarily concerned with a pan-Turkish nationalist movement that seeks a unified Central Asian superstate at the expense of Chinese territory and security. NATO, needless to say, lies at the root of this movement. Turkey is a NATO member, and separatist groups in western China have been on the CIA payroll for many decades.

Contributor to the journal Global Research, Andrew G. Marshall, writes the following in 2008 on the Anglo-American obsession with destabilizing the Middle East and Central Asia as the last-ditch attempt to save the eternally bankrupt West:

One of the main targets in this project is Iran, for which the US and Britain have engaged in massive acts of terror and orchestrating large battles and conflicts from within the already-failed state of Iraq. The Anglo-American role as terrorist supporters and as covertly orchestrating terror attacks within Iraq is amply documented. To imagine that these same Anglo-American intelligence and covert networks are not using their long-time conduit, the ISI, for the same purposes in Central Asia, is a stretch of the imagination and logic. It is not merely the Middle East that is the target, but Central Asia, specifically for its geographical relationship to the rising giants such as India and China. This also follows in line with Anglo-American strategies in destabilizing the Central European region, specifically the former Yugoslavia, and more recently, Georgia, largely in an effort to target Russia.

For their part, the Central Asian states seek their own interests. Uzbekistan loves the idea that two major powers are jockeying for position in the area, and seeks to balance the competing powers in the region in good Realist fashion. The United States also seeks influence in the region for the sake of “combating terrorism.” The Chinese see this as merely an excuse for intervention to control the transportation of oil and gas. To a great extent, both Russia and China would like to keep the United States out of the region permanently. The result has been strings of “color revolutions” backed by CIA money and, due to budget constraints, the contributions of Soros and company.

What worries the United States is an alliance among Russia, China and Iran. Not only would a formal alliance be immensely powerful, but very large territorially and potentially very wealthy. Such an alliance could, for better or worse, destroy American influence in the region and create an alternative oil producing and transport organization that could use its power against the west.

Ultimately, both China and Russia seek a Central Asia that they can at least influence, for the minimal project of keeping the Americans out. The creation of a “multipolar” world, where regional hegemons, rather than a single powerful economy, can exercise governance and influence in the worlds regions.

Immigrants from North Africa arriving daily on the Italian island of Lampedusa

In 1973, shortly before his death, the French President Georges Pompidou admitted to have opened the floodgates of immigration, at a request of a number of big businessmen, such as Francis Bouygues, who was eager to take advantage of docile and cheap labor devoid of class consciousness and of any tradition of social struggle. This move was meant to exert downward pressure on the wages of French workers, reduce their protesting zeal, and in addition, break up the unity of the labor movement. Big bosses, he said, “always want more.”

Forty years later nothing has changed. At a time when no political party would dare to ask for further acceleration of the pace of immigration, only big employers seem to be in favor of it — simply because it is in their interest. The only difference is that the affected economic sectors are now more numerous, going beyond the industrial sector and the hotel and catering service sector — now to include once “protected” professions, such as engineers and computer scientists.

France, as we know, starting with the 19th century, massively reached out to foreign immigrants. The immigrating population was already 800,000 in 1876, only to reach 1.2 million in 1911. French industry was the prime center of attraction for Italian and Belgian immigrants, followed by Polish, Spanish and Portuguese immigrants. “Such immigration, unskilled and non-unionized, allowed employers to evade increasing requirements pertaining to the labor law” (François-Laurent Balssa, « Un choix salarial pour les grandes entreprises » Le Spectacle du monde, Octobre, 2010).

In 1924, at the initiative of the Committee for Coalmining and big farmers from the Northeast of France, a “general agency for immigration” (Société générale d’immigration) was founded. It opened up employment bureaus in Europe, which operated as suction pumps. In 1931 there were 2.7 million foreigners in France, that is, 6.6 % of the total population. At that time France displayed the highest level of immigration in the world (515 persons on 100,000 inhabitants). “This was a handy way for a large number of big employers to exert downward pressure on wages. … From then on capitalism entered the competition of the workforce by reaching out to the reserve armies of wage earners.”

In the aftermath of World War II, immigrants began to arrive more and more frequently from Maghreb countries; first from Algeria, then from Morocco. Trucks chartered by large companies (especially in the automobile and construction industry) came by the hundreds to recruit immigrants on the spot. From 1962 to 1974, nearly two million additional immigrants arrived to France of whom 550,000 were recruited by the National Immigration Service (ONI), a state-run agency, yet controlled under the table by big business. Since then, the wave has continued to grow. François-Laurent Balssa notes that

when a workforce shortage in one sector occurs, out of the two possible choices one must either raise the salary, or one must reach out to foreign labor. Usually it was the latter option that was favored by the National Council of French Employers (CNPF) and as of 1998 by its successor, the Movement of Enterprises (MEDEF). That choice, which bears witness of the desire for short-term benefits, delayed advancement of production tools and industrial innovation. During the same period, however, as the example of Japan demonstrates, the rejection of foreign immigration and favoring of the domestic workforce enabled Japan to achieve its technological revolution, well ahead of most of its Western competitors.

Big Business and the Left; A Holy Alliance

At the beginning, immigration was a phenomenon linked to big business. It still continues to be that way. Those who clamor for always more immigration are big companies. This immigration is in accordance with the very spirit of capitalism, which aims at the erasure of borders (« laissez faire, laissez passer »). “While obeying the logic of social dumping, Balssa continues, a “low cost” labor market has thus been created with the “undocumented” and the “low-skilled,” functioning as stopgap “jack of all trades.” Thus, big business has reached its hand to the far-left, the former aiming at dismantling of the welfare state, considered to be too costly, the latter killing off the nation-state considered to be too archaic.” This is the reason why the French Communist Part (PCF) and the French Trade Union (CGT) (which have radically changed since then) had, until 1981, battled against the liberal principle of open borders, in the name of the defense of the working class interests.

For once a well-inspired Catholic liberal-conservative Philippe Nemo, only confirms these observations:

In Europe there are people in charge of the economy who dream about bringing to Europe cheap labor. Firstly, to do jobs for which the local workforce is in short supply; secondly, to exert considerable downward pressure on the wages of other workers in Europe. These lobbies, which possess all necessary means to be listened to either by their governments or by the Commission in Brussels, are, generally speaking, both in favor of immigration and Europe’s enlargement — which would considerably facilitate labor migrations. They are right from their point of view — a view of a purely economic logic [...] The problem, however, is that one cannot reason about this matter in economic terms only, given that the inflow of the extra-Europe population has also severe sociological consequences. If these capitalists pay little attention to this problem, it is perhaps because they enjoy, by and large, economic benefits from immigration without however themselves suffering from its social setbacks. With the money earned by their companies, whose profitability is ensured in this manner, they can reside in handsome neighborhoods, leaving their less fortunate compatriots to cope on their own with alien population in poor suburban areas. (Philippe Nemo, Le Temps d’y penser, 2010)

According to official figures, immigrants living in regular households account for 5 million people, which was 8% of the French population in 2008. Children of immigrants, who are direct descendants of one or two immigrants, represent 6.5 million people, which is 11% of the population. The number of illegals is estimated to be between 300,000 to 550,000. (Expulsion of illegal immigrants cost 232 million Euros annually, i.e., 12,000 euro per case). For his part, Jean-Paul Gourevitch, estimates the population of foreign origin living in France in 2009 at 7.7 people million (out of which 3.4 million are from the Maghreb and 2.4 million from sub-Saharan Africa), that is, 12.2% of the metropolitan population. In 2006, the immigrating population accounted for 17% of births in France.

France is today experiencing migrant settlements, which is a direct consequence of the family reunification policy. However, more than ever before immigrants represent the reserve army of capital.

In this sense it is amazing to observe how the networks on behalf of the “undocumented,” run by the far-left (which seems to have discovered in immigrants its “substitute proletariat”) serve the interests of big business. Criminal networks, smugglers of people and goods, big business, “human rights” activists, and under- the-table employers — all of them, by virtue of the global free market, have become cheerleaders for the abolition of frontiers.

For example, it is a revealing fact that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their books Empire and Multitude endorse “world citizenship ” when they call for the removal of borders, which must have as a first goal in developed countries the accelerated settlement of the masses of low-wage Third World workers. The fact that most migrants today owe their displacement to outsourcing, brought about by the endless logic of the global market, and that their displacement is precisely something capitalism strives for in order to fit everybody into the market, and finally, that each territorial attachment could be a part of human motivations — does not bother these two authors at all. On the contrary, they note with satisfaction that “capital itself requires increased mobility of labor as well as continuous migration across national borders.” The world market should constitute, from their point of view, a natural framework for “world citizenship.” The market “requires a smooth space of uncoded and deterritorialized flux,” destined to serve the interests of the “masses”, because “mobility carries a price tag of capital, which means the enhanced desire for liberty.”

The trouble with such an apology of human displacement, seen as a first condition of “liberating nomadism,” is that it relies on a completely unreal outlook of the specific situation of migrants and displaced people. As Jacques Guigou and Jacques Wajnsztejn write, “Hardt and Negri delude themselves with the capacity of the immigration flows, thought to be a source for new opportunities for capital valuation, as well as the basis for opportunity enhancement for the masses. Yet, migrations signify nothing else but a process of universal competition, whereas migrating has no more emancipating value than staying at home. A “nomadic” person is no more inclined to criticism or to revolt than a sedentary person.” (L’évanescence de la valeur. Une présentation critique du groupe Krisis, 2004).

“As long as people keep abandoning their families, adds Robert Kurz, and look for work elsewhere, even at the risk of their own lives — only to be ultimately shredded by the treadmill of capitalism — they will be less the heralds of emancipation and more the self-congratulatory agents of the postmodern West. In fact, they only represent its miserable version.” (Robert Kurz, « L’Empire et ses théoriciens », 2003).

Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.

Alain de Benoist is a philosopher residing in France. The above article was first published in the quarterly Eléments, “L’immigration; armée de réserve du capital” (April-June 2011, Nr. 139).

In May 1927, a shy, handsome 25-year-old suddenly sprang from obscurity to instant world fame when he flew a small single-seat, single-engine airplane, called the “Spirit of St. Louis,” from Long Island, New York, to an airfield in Paris. In a grueling 33-hour flight that covered 3,600 miles, Charles A. Lindbergh became the first person to fly the Atlantic ocean, alone and non-stop. His daring flight, and his aviation pioneering afterwards, made him, for some years, the most admired man in America, and the most admired American in the world.

During his lifetime he made a mark not only as a pioneering global aviator, but also as an award-winning author, environmentalist and anti-war activist. Given the scarcity of truly heroic Americans during the past century, he towers as a man of exemplary accomplishment and courage. He deserves to be remembered today not only as an authentic American hero, but also because much of what he wrote and said is relevant in our own age. Indeed, some of his remarks have proven to be prophetic.

Charles Lindbergh was born in 1902 of Swedish, English, Irish and Scottish ancestry. He grew up in Minnesota in a family that was accomplished and well educated. His father was an attorney, a writer, a publisher and a U.S. Congressman.

Lindbergh travelled widely in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa, as well as across the U.S. He met and spoke at length with many of the world’s most prominent personalities. And he carefully observed and thoughtfully remembered much of what he saw and experienced. During the 1930s he spent much time in Britain, France and Germany — three countries he admired. But he was particularly impressed by what he observed during his several visits to Germany in the years 1936 to 1939 — that is, during a period of dynamic change under the leadership of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist movement.

Lindbergh did not approve of everything he saw there. In particular, he disagreed with the regime’s Jewish policy. All the same, he wrote at the time, he felt that Germany was “the most interesting nation in the world today, and that she is attempting to find a solution for some of our most fundamental problems.”

“While I still have many reservations,” he wrote to a U.S. Army officer who was also a personal friend, “I have come away with a feeling of great admiration for the German people. The condition of the country, and the appearance of the average person whom I saw, leaves with me the impression that Hitler must have far more character and vision than I thought existed in the German leader who has been painted in so many different ways by the accounts of America and England.”

In a letter to another American friend he wrote: “With all the things we criticize, he [Hitler] is undoubtedly a great man, and I believe has done much for the German people. He is fanatic in many ways, and any one can see that there is a certain amount of fanaticism in Germany today. It is less than I expected, but it is there. On the other hand, Hitler has accomplished results — good in addition to bad — which could hardly have been accomplished without some fanaticism.”

Lindbergh’s wife was Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a remarkable woman who was, in her own right, an accomplished aviator and a successful author. In a 1936 letter to her mother, she wrote: “Hitler, I am beginning to feel, is a very great man, like an inspired religious leader — and as such rather fanatical — but not scheming, not selfish, not greedy for power, but a mystic, a visionary who really wants the best for his country and, on the whole, has a rather broad view.”

Charles Lindbergh was so impressed with Hitler’s Germany that he seriously considered moving there with his family. “I did not feel real freedom until I came to Europe,” he remarked in 1939. “The strange thing is that of all the European countries, I found most personal freedom in Germany, with England next, and then France.” After a search for a suitable place to live, he found a property in a suburb of Berlin that he came close to buying. But as the threat of war grew in Europe, he abandoned those plans.

The outbreak of war in September 1939 distressed him greatly, and he resolved to do what he could to help keep the U.S. out of the conflict. During the next two years — that is, until the United States formally entered the conflict in December 1941 — he spoke out in a series of public statements and speeches.

In an address given in mid-September 1939 that was broadcast on nationwide radio and widely circulated in written form, Lindbergh said: “We must keep foreign propaganda from pushing our country blindly into another war … We should never enter a war unless it is absolutely essential to the future welfare of our nation.

“These wars in Europe are not wars in which our civilization is defending itself against some Asiatic intruder. There is no Genghis Khan nor Xerxes marching against our Western nations. This is not a question of banding together to defend the white race against foreign invasion. This is simply one more of those age-old struggles within our own family of nations — a quarrel arising from the errors of the last war — from the failure of the victors of that war to follow a consistent policy either of fairness or of force.

“As a result, another war has begun, a war which is likely to be far more prostrating than the last, a war which will again kill off the best youth of Europe, a war which may even lead to the end of our Western civilization.

“Our safety does not lie in fighting European wars. It lies in our own internal strength, in the character of the American people and of American institutions. As long as we maintain an army, a navy and an air force worthy of the name, as long as America does not decay within, we need fear no invasion of this country.”

A few weeks later, he spoke again to the American people in another coast-to-coast broadcast. “Our bond with Europe,” he said, “is a bond of race and not of political ideology… It is the European race we must preserve; political progress will follow. Racial strength is vital; politics a luxury. If the white race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French, and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction.”

Lindbergh laid out similar views in an article, “Aviation, Geography and Race” that appeared in the November 1939 issue of Reader’s Digest, the most widely read American monthly periodical. He wrote: “We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization … We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood …”

For many Americans today, Lindbergh’s views on race and culture may seem offensive or outrageous. But for most of this nation’s history, they were not at all unusual. They were in accord with the outlook of such prominent Americans as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Such views were also shared by the vast majority of Americans during the 1930s — although it was already becoming unfashionable to express them openly.

In his address of August 4, 1940, Lindbergh spoke about how Americans had been badly misinformed about conditions abroad. “I found conditions in Europe to be very different from our concept of them here in the United States,” he said. “Anyone who takes the trouble to read through back issues of our newspapers cannot fail to realize what a false impression we had of the belligerent nations. We were told that Germany was ripe for revolution, that her rearmament was a bluff, that she lacked officers, that she flew her airplanes from one field to another so they would be counted again and again by foreign observers … Statements of this sort have issued forth in an endless stream from Europe, and anyone who questioned their accuracy was called a Nazi agent. These examples show how greatly we have been misled about the military conditions in Europe. If one goes still farther back, he will find that we have also been misled about political conditions.”

In a much-publicized appearance before a Congressional committee in early 1941, Lindbergh testified against further U.S. measures toward war. As he had on other occasions, he voiced the hope that the conflict between Britain and Germany might be resolved through a negotiated peace, and he expressed his view that the U.S. should not “police the world.”

Active during this period was the largest and most important peace group in U.S. history. With some 800,000 members, the America First Committee was a formidable and broad-based citizens’ organization. Lindbergh was its most popular, eloquent and influential spokesman. At a large rally in New York City in April 1941, he appealed for support.

“ … We have been led toward war by a minority of our people,” he said. “This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people … These people — the majority of hard-working American citizens — are with us. They are the true strength of our country … That is why the America First Committee has been formed — to give voice to the people who have no newspaper, or news reel, or radio station at their command; to the people who must do the paying, and the fighting, and the dying, if this country enters the war.

“… If you believe in an independent destiny for America, if you believe that this country should not enter the war in Europe, we ask you to join the America First Committee in its stand. We ask you to share our faith in the ability of this nation to defend itself, to develop its own civilization, and to contribute to the progress of mankind in a more constructive and intelligent way than has yet been found by the warring nations of Europe.”

Lindbergh’s most controversial — and courageous — public address was given at a large meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941. (It was on that same date 60 years later that the World Trade Center in New York was attacked and destroyed.) In this speech, Lindbergh for the first and only time spoke publicly about just who was pushing for war. He said:

“National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany in 1939, less than ten percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

“The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”

Lindbergh was careful to add these words: “I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.”

Lindbergh went on: “As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.”

With regard to Jewish efforts to get the U.S. into war, Lindbergh said: “Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.” He then said: “We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own best interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.”

He went on to explain the deceitful measures of those who were pressing for war. “They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of, course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

“Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms `fifth columnist,` ‘traitor,’ `Nazi,’ `anti-Semitic’ were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. … Propaganda was in full swing.”

This address unleashed a torrent of scathing criticism. Lindbergh was viciously attacked — above all, for his remarks about the Jewish role in the campaign for war — even though what he has said was measured and truthful.

Ten months before the outbreak of fighting in Europe, for example, the most influential U.S. illustrated weekly magazine was already psychologically preparing Americans for war with alarmist claims that Germany threatened the United States. A major article in the October 31, 1938, issue of Life magazine, headlined “America Gets Ready to Fight Germany, Italy, Japan,” told readers that Germany and Italy “covet … the rich resources of South America,” and warned that “fascist fleets and legions may swarm across the Atlantic.”

In fact, Hitler and all other high-level German officials were eager to avoid conflict with the U.S., Britain or France. But in September 1939 Britain and France — encouraged by the U.S. — declared war against Germany.

During this period, President Roosevelt and other high-ranking U.S. officials also sought to generate public support for the administration’s war measures with frightening allegations of fantastic German plans to conquer the world.

On the very day that Lindbergh gave his controversial address in Des Moines, President Roosevelt told the American people that Hitler and Germany were seeking “to abolish the freedom of the seas, and to acquire absolute control and domination of the sears for themselves” as part of a grand German strategy that aimed at “domination of the United States … [and of] the Western hemisphere by force.” With this justification, the President went on to announce a “shoot on sight” order to the U.S. Navy against German and Italian ships in the Atlantic — a provocative and completely illegal war measure.

And in an address to the American people on October 27, 1941, President Roosevelt announced that he had a “secret map” that proved Hitler’s intention to take over all of South America and reorganize it into German-dominated states. The President also revealed that he had in his possession “another document made in Germany by Hitler’s government. It is a detailed plan to abolish all existing religions — Catholic, Protestant, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish alike,” which Germany will impose “on a dominated world, if Hitler wins.”

Although millions of Americans believed these and similarly brazen falsehoods, seasoned foreign onlookers were not so credulous. One such observer was Poland’s ambassador in Washington, Jerzy Potocki, who reported regularly to Warsaw on conditions in the United States. In a confidential dispatch of February 1938 — more than a year a half before the outbreak of war in Europe — he took note of the Jewish role in pushing for war.

“The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful,” he wrote. “The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent … This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler who wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.

“ … This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world’.”

In a confidential dispatch of January 9, 1939, the ambassador reported: “The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison with last year.”

The Polish envoy made similar points a few days later in his confidential report of January 12, 1939:

“The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible — above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited — this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. Right now most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and Nazism as the greatest evil and greatest danger threatening the world.

“… The American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans of freedom and democracy in the world.”

Twenty-five years after the end of the Second World War, Lindbergh published his Wartime Journals. In an introduction to the book, which prompted much discussion and comment, he looked back on the conflict and its legacy.

“We won the war in a military sense,” he wrote, “but in a broader sense it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before. In order to defeat Germany and Japan we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China – which now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved … Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through aeons in many million lives … It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization’s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man.”

As daring as Lindbergh’s famous trans-Atlantic flight had been, he showed greater courage and devotion to principle in his bold campaign against war. “We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction,” he warned on September 11, 1941. If Americans had heeded those words, the U.S. would not have suffered the horrors of the 9/11 attack sixty years later.

Continuing from Part 1with a translation of parts of the third edition (1943) of Rasse und Seele, by Ludwig F. Clauss.

“To each according to his kind, to each according to his style”

The movement of the body is the expression of the movement of the soul. This can best be seen in the interplay of facial muscles and in the gestures of the arms and hands with which the speaker accompanies his speech. Why is he moving his hands in such a way and why not differently? Because the special way of his spiritual alertness will also determine the way his hands move. The style of spiritual movement determines the style of the bodily movement.

Here is a little example from day to day life that illuminates this matter. Who is more gifted to drive a motor vehicle, the Nordic man or the Mediterranean man? This question is also meaningless. Neither “the” Nordic man is endowed with this or that, nor is “the” Mediterranean man. There are many individuals of both races who are gifted to drive a car. If that’s the case, then the Nordics do that in a Nordic way and it is precisely by this that they are recognizable as Nordics.

The same goes for the Mediterranean who does it in the Mediterranean way. And it is precisely by this that he can be recognized. And this is how these two styles differ. The Mediterranean driver is the master of the moment: he is always there, always in perfect instantaneity. He drives with an abrupt change at lightning speed and at a sharp curve he yields and slams on the brakes with instantaneous effect — the more dangerous the driving, the more impressive is his game. At this stage the Nordic man is not comparable—not because he is a bad driver, but because the laws of his mental and physical movement compel him to a different driving style.

The Nordic man does not live in the world as it is; he lives always in the world as it will be. He is not the master of the instant, but rather the master of the distance. He is not cutting suddenly into the curve; he bends the curve. For him turning is “nice” if it can be predicted and then, if possible, played down. The Mediterranean driver loves surprise: only in it he can prove to be the master of the moment. The Nordic driver anticipates always ahead of the coming event, even a possible coming event. In this way he provides for himself some preplanned traffic regulations for all possible cases, which would likely irritate the Mediterranean driver, perhaps more so than it would make the driving easier for him. For the driver of the Mediterranean type there is no relief if the thrill of surprise is missing.

The third fallacy of L’Osservatore Romano is the allegation that the German people are equated with the Nordic race, whereas the Italian people are equated with the Mediterranean race. Although this is not explicitly mentioned it is tacitly suggested. The German people are composed of several races, where, of course, the Nordic race predominates. But there is also different blood among the German people, as for example, the Mediterranean blood. Likewise, the Italian people are also a mixture of several races, of which — at least in the southern part of the peninsula — the Mediterranean race predominates. But there is also different blood among the Italian people, such as Nordic blood. It is by no means true that these two peoples are separated by sharp racial boundaries; they have a good deal more in common in their blood.

This blood relationship stretches into the earliest Roman times and has been renewed many times ever since. And in both cultures, in the Germanic, as well as in the Roman, the play and counter-play of the Nordic and the Mediterranean operate; except that each culture shows different results. The Roman is older, whereas the Germanic is younger. Which one is worth more, the older or the younger? This question also seems to be wrongly put.

The attempt, to sow distrust between friendly nations, by suspecting German racial policies, can no longer be valid. Every step in the field of international politics and colonial politics confirms the findings of the psychology of race and proves it with practical usefulness when dealing with other types of people. Thegoal (of race psychology) is not to separate peoples, but to connect peoples insofar as it establishes between one type and the other a scientifically based mutual understanding. [Emphasis in text.]

The Gestalt: Psycho-Racial Anthropology

Clauss introduced new concepts, often using words and compound nouns that up until then had been nonexistent in the study of race. When translated today, these words may lend themselves to dangerous conceptual manipulations, which in turn, liberal masters of discourse will quickly label as “racist.”

This is generally the case with the German language, a stupendously rich language known for its numerous inflections. Very often Clauss uses the term ‘Gestalt’ when providing racial typologies, a word which in English can be translated as ‘shape’ or ‘form’. However, in the German language and depending on the subject matter, ‘Gestalt’, when used from the nationalist and politically conservative point of view, may refer to aesthetic and cultural perfection in the description of high forms of Western civilization. The German term ‘Gestalt’ was very popular in Germany in the first half of the 20th century, not just in the realm of race but also in other fields, such as literature and philosophy. Clauss’s contemporaries, the German philosopher of history, Oswald Spengler, or the novelist and essayist Ernst Jünger, two scions of the pre-WWII “revolutionary-conservative intellectual revolution,” often used the term ‘Gestalt’ as a normative reference to aesthetic and political magnificence and as a radical opposite to the dreaded liberal–communist formless system permeated by the process of uglification and decadence.

Clauss’s focus on racial style and form, which he calls ‘Gestalt’, must not be confused with the school of psychology, known as “Gestalt psychology” that developed among some liberal German psychologists in the mid- 20’s—a school, that downplayed the racial factor.

For Clauss and for many racialist scholars of his time, every racial type and every racial subtype represents objective reality differently. Hence, there is no absolute truth but only a specific apprehension of the truth based on the individual’s own psycho-racial make-up.

Because everything that happens here — the way somebody looks at us, the way he behaves, or the way how he acts, that is to say, all living things altogether — have their racial traits. A treasure trove of such fruitful examples is provided by history. One, of these motives in Germanic life, repeatedly mentioned by Tacitus, is “loyalty”, which is in contrast to the no less effective violation of Germanic loyalty: treason. ( Rasse und Seele, pp. 38–39)

Race is by no means only a physical expression relegated to a given spot on Earth, such as for instance the assumption that only the geographic areas of Scandinavia must house Nordic peoples. Clauss rejects the idea that racial anthropology must always match racial psychology. There are many individuals who can have Nordic physical traits (phenotype) but whose behavior is un- Nordic:

Some people understand this word as if the race (Nordic) can only be found in northern Germany. Both of it is not the meaning of the description “the Nordic race.” The Nordic race is also a creator and a carrier of the German spirit in southern parts of the German national territory, whereas in other parts of northern Germany – similar to the Scandinavian lands (except for Nordic blood), live also non-Nordic races. A definition, which could be useful in psychology, will acquire the denomination “Nordic” only when we manage to demonstrate the connection between the Nordic landscape and the lifestyle of that race. A psychologist should denominate races only according to the pattern which the process of his research brings under his eyes. To investigate into the psychology of races means first and foremost to discern the meaning of its bodily form (Gestalt). This meaning, however, can only be understood from its psychological form (Gestalt). (Rasse und Charakter, 1942, p. 43; emphasis in text).

This proves once again that the idea of national identity and nationality at large cannot be automatically equated with the extent to which one embodies a racial archetype. The following four photos illustrate three different German types and a Jewish type:

4. A very tall German woman from the German speaking region of South Tyrol (northern Italy) (Mediterranean and Alpine streak). The lips alignment and the eyebrows configuration are common for the Dinaric race.

Clauss’s books have therefore a twofold purpose. He demolishes the liberal propagandistic lie that racial awareness means White man’s exclusion of non-Whites, carried through by an alleged blond German beast. Instead, his books teach us that it is precisely when admitting our racial and sub-racial differences, both in style and in character, that interracial hatred can be avoided. Moreover, his works are important insofar as they can be a good lesson for many troubled White nationalists who assume that their well-proportioned body must give them a certificate for bizarre, illicit, or criminal behavior. Who among us have not encountered self-congratulatory White conmen or White lowlifes whose behavior does more harm to the research on race than the palaver of all leftists and antiracists combined? Similar to his colleague Julius Evola, Clauss is aware that some White man may have a perfect race of the body, but whose race of the spirit may be mongrelized to monstrous proportion.

’Artrecht’ (“Being of his own kind”; of his in- group) is not a synonym for being “racially pure” in the original sense of the word. Here we can see the difference between the “raciality” (‘Rassigkeit’) of man and the “raciality” of animal. If somebody is racially pure, he is not automatically a man of his kind (‘artrecht’). To be Nordic, for example, does not have to mean to be a good man or a noble man. Not every Nordic man embodies Nordic values. A man of the Nordic style can also be a crook or a criminal. A Nordic miscreant differs from a Mediterranean, Alpine, or a Middle Eastern miscreant as clearly as a righteous Nordic man differs in this sense from righteous people of these races. Both of them, the righteous man and his negative mirror-image, the miscreant, are bound by the same ethical laws respectively. With one exception: the one abides by it, the other breaks it. Pure heroes and pure crooks are rare; among all of us simmers a temptation to commit, at least once, an outrage against things that we consider right. Not that the race changes in us when we follow this temptation; only our racial system of value is disturbed. Race is race; in good and in bad. And the law remains the law even when it is infringed. (Rasse und Charakter, p. 78).

Clauss’s books are important because they delve into the hidden corners of human behavior as determined by race. His field of research may be labeled “psycho-racial anthropology,” a field which has been rejected for over a half a century by Freudian-Marxian scholars. As long as the mystique of egalitarianism runs full steam in Western society — be it under the guise of Christian “love thy neighbor,” or under the label of the more secular liberal avatars like the “multicultural consensual society” — any serious effort to combat the danger of the multiracial experiment will be futile. Only when the current dominant ideas are successfully intellectually challenged, will the whole fraud of multicultural promiscuity fall apart overnight.

On September 11, 2001, for the first time ever, terror attacks from the sky struck America with horrific, devastating suddenness.

The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks meant to harm the United States. But the response to those attacks by President George W. Bush and other American political leaders has proven to be even more harmful. The U.S. response has weakened this country’s security, undermined its economy, degraded its standing and credibility, and violated the principles it claims to uphold.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the President and other prominent Americans lied about a crucial aspect of the attacks: the motive. Along with much of the media, Bush and other political leaders promoted the “Big Lie” that the September 11 attacks were entirely unprovoked and unrelated to U.S. policy and actions.

On national television President Bush said that “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” The next day he said that “freedom and democracy are under attack,” and that the perpetrators had struck against “all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world.” But if “democracy” and “freedom-loving people” were the targets, why didn’t the perpetrators attack Switzerland, Japan or Norway?

In fact, it’s clear that the men who carried out the 9/11 suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were motivated, at least in large measure, by rage over U.S. air strikes and economic warfare against Muslim and Arab countries, and by anger over decades-long U.S. support for Israel and its policies of aggression and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims.

The U.S. government’s official report on 9/11, issued in 2004, skirted the question of motive. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the two most senior officials of the commission that issued the report, later explained in a memoir: “This was sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al-Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology – and not by opposition to American policies – rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qaeda’s opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy.”

The terror of 9/11 was predictable because it was not unprecedented. In 1993, for example, Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton administration officials said signaled the start of “a real war against terrorism.” In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official warned that “the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high.”

In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush pledged a “crusade,” a “war against terrorism,” and a “sustained campaign” to “eradicate the evil of terrorism.” His successor, President Barack Obama, has continued the campaign. But such calls have sounded hollow given the U.S. government’s own record of support for terrorism. For example, American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Israeli prime ministers, such as Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, with well-documented records as terrorists.

Following 9/11, Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American supporters, lost no time exploiting the national mood of fear, rage and revenge to press for new U.S. military action against Israel’s many enemies. U.S. government officials, with important backing in the media, claimed that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein regime had supported the perpetrators of 9/11. On the basis of this and other equally baseless allegations, the U.S. launched an illegal and unnecessary war against Iraq.

However justified the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 may have been as a response to 9/11, the subsequent U.S. bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq certainly was not. The key motive behind the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was not the official one.

Nearly 3,000 people perished in the September 11 attacks, but more Americans have been killed in the wars launched by the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. More than 4,000 U.S. military personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, and more than a million Iraqis (by some accounts) have died, directly or indirectly, because of the war.

For most Americans, modern war has largely been an abstraction — something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of U.S. air attack and bombardment in Pakistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq and other distant countries have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention because U.S. military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton’s administration, spoke in a memorable 1996 interview about the cost in human life of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.S. during the 1990s. During the interview she was asked: “We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima … Is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “ …We think the price is worth it.”

One positive consequence of the shock of 9/11 has been to encourage many more Americans to question official claims and re-think entrenched assumptions about their government’s arrogant “policeman” role in the world. Many more Americans have come to understand how political leaders of both parties have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist interests.

In the years since 9/11, there’s been no change in the basic character of U.S. foreign and military policy, in spite of a flurry of high hopes for change when Barack Obama became president. As a result, distrust and hatred of the United States around the world have persisted.

The calamity of September 11 was a consequence, above all, of the Jewish-Zionist grip on American political life and the U.S. media. Enduring security will therefore remain elusive as long as U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East, is set by a small but very influential minority with its own agenda and strong ethno-religious ties to a key protagonist in the region.

Real security for America will require radically different policies based on clear-eyed awareness of authentic American national interests and enlightened concern for the long-term good of the U.S. and the world.

The Privatization of Political Protest: Western Banks Against the New Islamic Banking Movement

While major media speak of the recent spate of riots throughout the Islamic world as “spontaneous,” the financing of these “opposition” movements by major banks over the last decade says otherwise. But why? The rise of Islamic banking as a challenge to the Rothschild empire serves as a clear financial reason why the present governments in the Islamic world must go.

The fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s saw a fairly new phenomenon: the rise of privately funded opposition groups around the world. The financiers of these groups are, speaking generally, the Western banking community, seeking “democratic freedoms.” Usually, the remainder of the agenda is vague. It began in Serbia in the early 1990s, and continues in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011. However, a new player has emerged in the Islamic world that has got Western banks squirming, and that is the independent Islamic finance movement.

The groups involved in financing the opposition in Egypt and elsewhere include, most commonly, the George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the International Crisis Group (ICG) of the Rothschild family and their many offshoots. Major figures sitting on ICG’s board include George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Senator George Mitchell, Morton Abramowitz, Gen. Wesley Clark and Samuel Berger. They have donated millions of dollars to liberal groups operating against governments in strategic areas. The agenda is identical in each case: liberal democracy, secularism, feminism, and private banking. The mobilization of urban youth has long been an important aspect of Soros/ICG operations from Belarus to Bahrain.

More recently, the riots in Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and Egypt are the result of many years of mobilization and funding of leftist organizations in urban areas since the late 1990s. In Tunisia, for example, the ICG has helped create and finance such organizations as Radio Kalima, the Andalus Institute for Tolerance and the Al-Jahedh Forum for Free Thought. The agenda of these groups is identical to that of the ICG and the Soros empire. Since 2000, the total amount of money funneled to “opposition” groups has topped $10 million.

The creation of political opposition is only part of the story. These organizations, according to news sources such as the British Daily Telegraph and the Global Islamic Finance News, have been involved in training teachers, judges, police officers and bureaucrats in North Africa and elsewhere. The ICG and others are attempting to create a society that is no longer Islamic, no longer religions or traditional, but liberal, urban and open to foreign investment and banking. Given the interests of the players involved, the central concept is to ensure the presence of Rothschild banking in areas where it is being challenged both by the state and independent Islamic banking.

The European Union is in a slow state of decomposition. Riots from Greece to Iceland have shown the bankruptcy of major European banks. On the other hand, Islamic banking operates with a total deposit base of over $1.5 trillion. In 2010, the British Daily Telegraph reported that the Islamic finance movement was challenging London for financial dominance through their investments in Bahrain, Egypt and Tunisia, using Tunis specifically as its new base. Back in 2008, the Washington Post wrote, “As big Western financial institutions have teetered one after the other in the crisis of recent weeks, another financial sector is gaining new confidence: Islamic banking.” The thrust of the article is that Islamic banks are more stable than Western banks, partially because of the refusal to charge interest or take excessive risks. This Post article sent warning signs to London, and the ICG stepped up its financing efforts in Islamic states in response.

The Telegraph admitted that the new Islamic banks were doing some damage to London’s banking profits. At a time when the banking industry struggles with debt, a major challenger such as the Tunis movement could do some grave harm.

The Financial Times reported in 2011 that Islamic banks are in the process of taking over Pakistan’s financial sector and are slowly replacing the IMF as that country’s economic aid partner. This newspaper wrote, “In the past decade, Pakistan’s central bank has encouraged the growth of Islamic banks, as well as Islamic investment windows offered by conventional banks, in response to growing calls from Muslims seeking to deposit in and borrow from Islamic institutions.” Identical policies were in place in Cairo, Tunis and Manama, and was very bad news for the London financial community.

The removal of non-liberal states means the ability for Western banks to more easily penetrate places like Libya, that has a government controlled central bank. Strong states in this strategic part of the world make it far more difficult for Rothschild banks to control finance in these states, and as a result, the “opposition” is created as a financial investment.

The liberal-communist propaganda against Fascism and National-Socialism has produced results contrary to those originally anticipated. It has created the conceptual model of a value system that often defies the objective reality of the bygone Fascist and National-Socialist epochs. It has given birth to dangerous and subconscious infatuation with hyperreal would-be Fascism, best to be seen in modern mimicry of Hollywood Nazism, especially among troubled young White people. The decades-long antifascist propaganda has produced a peculiar type of infra-political narcissism among a number of estranged White nationalists who often conceive of Fascism as a life style or a vicarious Internet escapade. The deadly offshoots of such liberal propaganda are deranged Whites such as Anders Breivik who recently killed scores of innocent people in Norway.

After World War II, National-Socialism and Fascism were officially and normatively designated by the liberal system as the symbols of absolute evil. Consequently, if Fascism stands today for absolute evil, all other systems of beliefs, all other political regimes, or other political values—however aberrant they may be or will be in the future—must be viewed as lesser evils. The history of Communist mass killings and the ongoing economic corruption and mendacity of the liberal system, however inhumane they are, or may be in the future, must willy-nilly be tolerated.

As was noted on several occasions in TOO articles (e.g., here), nowhere has the communist-liberal propaganda been as destructive as in higher education and in the media. Thousands of titles in the field of psychology, sociology and genetics, published in Europe and the USA in the 20s, 30s and 40s of the twentieth century, had to disappear from social science curriculum. Any dispassionate, unbiased and objective talk—for instance about race, especially if a researcher refers to scholarly titles from the Fascist and Nationalist-Socialist epoch—is met with suspicion, ostracism, smear campaigns and the occasional judiciary inquisition. The problem is further aggravated by the insufficient scope of analysis exhibited by many contemporary well-meaning racialist scholars, particularly in America, who oftentimes neglect other approaches in the study of race. Thus when the word ‘race’ is mentioned one is led to think about the structure of a person’s body, forgetting that the study of race can be addressed from a psychological and spiritual point of view as well.

There is also a considerable divide between American and European researchers regarding the race issue. American racialist scholars tend to use an empirically-based, quantitative approach; hence their penchant for Darwinism and the evolutionary theory and the inescapable measurement of IQ. In Europe, especially in the first part of the 20th century, the subject of race had a large following among scholars from different and often mutually conflicting disciplines, ranging from the field of biology to the field of religious mysticism. Among many others, mention should be made of the philosopher Julius Evola, whose study of race combines both the natural science and the social science approach.

Evola was hostile to Darwinism and in his books he argues that higher species (e.g., the White man), could not possibly evolve from other races (Blacks) or from lower animal species, such as African primates. If we concede that the White man evolved from lesser species, why panic today at the sight of interbreeding we are witnessing in modern multicultural society? Accordingly, sooner or later all of mankind (based on the liberal-communist dogma of progress) will end up being beautiful and the same and sport very high IQs. Evola argues, based on the legacy of Indo-European sagas and myths (all being replete with stories on demigods, magical, transcendental and invisible forces), that our predecessors, the antediluvian Hyperboreans represented our only true race. What we are witnessing today is involution resulting in racial chaos.

Clauss was a highly influential academic in National- Socialist Germany, a reputation which did not diminish after WWII. His later works on the psychology of Arabs are quite sympathetic to Islamic culture are widely quoted. Although a member of the National Socialist party, he helped his Jewish aide Margaret Landé, thus earning himself in Israel, after his death, the title of “righteous among the nations.” What follows is my translation of his chapter and some excerpts from his books Rasse und Seele (Race and Soul) and Rasse und Character (Race and Character). The chapter was published in the third edition of Clauss’ Rasse und Seele, in 1943, a highly influential work in Germany back then, which, when perused today, does not sound “Nazi” (?) at all. Clauss’ books tells us that the enigma of race and racial psychology needs to be looked at over and over again — in a dispassionate, across-the-board, and interdisciplinary fashion.

“The question of value”

“When something new enters history it does not need to wait long in order to encounter fierce resistance. Whatever the German research on racial psychology encountered in Germany, a similar fate befell the entire German research on racial psychology from the rest of the world. Outrageous allegations were thrown all around, which in most cases were so clumsy and stupid, that with the passage of time they died of their own accord. Gradually, however, the fight against us became more refined. In most cases at the center of the argument, which had us as targets, surfaced the question of value: we were accused of viewing the Nordic race as the only valuable race while considering other races inferior. Wherever this “evidence” found credibility, it worked against us, all the more as the word ‘Nordic’, which among ignorant people is easily misinterpreted, causes all sorts of nonsense.

Unfortunately, the Vatican, in this campaign against the findings of racial psychology, leveled attacks against us in L’Osservatore Romano, April 30, 1938 — an attack using its usual methods. Given that my books are also targets of the attacks, it seems to be my duty to add a few words and put things in the right perspective, insofar as they are of concern to me. It won’t hurt if the explanations in this book are anticipated in advance. There are three fallacies by means of which each attack attempts to drive a wedge between us and our neighbors.

Firstly, the impression has been created that German science of race accords to each race a certain grade — as does the teacher to his pupils, i.e., placing, so to speak, races into hierarchical slots, whereby the first place must be awarded to the Nordic race. It follows from this that the Mediterranean race must reconcile itself with the second position, or worse, settle for an even lower one.

This is patently false. Undoubtedly, in Germany and elsewhere, books and booklets have been published that support such views. The psychology or race, however, which, in the last analysis, is the only qualified field to make decisions about racial-psychological values, has taught from the very beginning and with a distinct precision:

Each race in itself represents the highest value. Each race carries in itself its own system of values and its own standard of values and must not be measured by the standards of another race.

It is absurd and unscientific to analyze the Mediterranean race through the eyes of the Nordic race and to evaluate it according to the Nordic system of values. The reverse process is also scientific. In practical life such things happen over and over again and it seems to be unavoidable. In science, however, it is contrary to simple logic. To make decisions about the value of a human race in an “objective” manner could only be done by a human being who stands above all races. But there is no such human being because to be human means to be racially conditioned.

Maybe God knows the hierarchy of races, but we do not.

The goal of science is to find laws that determine the mental and physical shape of each race. Only after the laws of each race are discovered can its inner value system be agreed upon. These value systems can be compared with each other: for instance the inner value system of the Nordic race with the inner value system of the Mediterranean race. Such comparisons are instructive because each thing in the world shows, in a clear fashion, what it is — if one sets it apart from other things that are different. But such value systems cannot be evaluated from a superior standpoint because there is no such standpoint.

The Nordic man should be Nordic; the Mediterranean man Mediterranean.
Only then can every man be real, only then can every man be good — each in his own way. This is the conviction I hold of German racial psychology, and it is the position which has also been adopted by the racial policies of the German government. The Office of Racial Policy of the NSDAP(Das Rassenpolitische Amt der NSDAP)has printed pictures and plaques and has distributed them in German schools, where we read in large letters the following words: Each race in itself represents the highest value.

The second fallacy that the L’Osservatore Romano would like to promote is the following: according to German science each race differs from others insofar as each one has characteristics that the others don’t. Thus, the Nordic race is characterized by the ability to compare, and by energy, responsibility, diligence, and a sense of heroism. Other races do not have such characteristics. It cannot be denied that in some older anthropological works, but also in the German ones, such un-psychological statements can be found. Nevertheless, it is advisable to listen to a shoemaker when one talks about footgear, to a sailor about seafaring, to a psychologist about the laws of psychology — and not to an anatomist.

Since 1921 German racial psychology has been teaching with clear cut precision: the racial-psychological factor does not lie in this or that characteristic. Characteristics are a matter of each individual human being; somebody has such-and-such characteristics, somebody else has a different set of characteristics. The sense of heroism, for instance, can undoubtedly be encountered among many Nordic men; yet it can also be encountered among people of different races. The same is true concerning energy (will power), the ability for discernment, etc. The racial-psychological factor does not lie in such-and-such a characteristic, but rather in the manner in which these characteristics express themselves with each individual. The Heroism of the Nordic man and that of the Mediterranean man can be equally “great,” yet each looks different, i.e. expresses itself in a different way and with a different gesture.

The childlike attempt to put together individual characteristics, which are to be found among representatives of a particular race, as for instance among the Nordic race, and then to assume that the racial factor lies in the possession of such-and-such a characteristic, is no wiser than an attempt at depicting someone’s physical appearance—for instance, Nordic racial appearance. Nordics have noses, mouths, arms, and hands. But other races also have noses, mouths, arms, and hands. Therefore the racial factor does not lie in the possession of these body parts. Race determines the shape of the nose, the shape of the mouth, and the way it is held and moved. Nobody who has eyes can dispute the fact that a man of the Mediterranean race moves differently than a Nordic man, that he walks differently, dances differently, accompanies his speech with different gestures. Who can now ask the question as to which sort of a movement, or what sort of a gesture is of more value: the Mediterranean or the Nordic? This question is pointless.”

With the United States mired in seeming never ending warfare in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with America’s real national security imperiled by a gigantic and ever growing debt, a number of politicians, even in the hawkish Republican Party, are following their constituents and advocating the diminution of America’s imperial presence. People who were relatively unmoved by geostrategic and moral reasons are willing to oppose America’s costly empire at a time when the key concern is how to deal with America’s large and ever expanding debt. A Pew poll conducted at the end of May showed that 60 per cent of Americans attribute the increase in national debt to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a number that is significantly higher than those who lay the blame on domestic spending (24 per cent) or tax cuts (19 per cent). And 65 per cent advocate reducing U.S. military commitments.

Although a majority of Americans are now advocating a reduced American presence abroad, much of the establishment has been branding this position with the pejorative term “isolationism.” It is not actually clear what the term “isolationism” actually means except that it connotes something negative. Obviously, isolationism is not restricted to the complete or nearly complete elimination of all ties with the outside world–political, economic, and cultural. Only a few countries have ever pursued such an extreme policy: for example, China (especially during the Ming and Manchu dynasties–15th -19th centuries), the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan (1641-1853), the Hermit Kingdom of Korea in the 19th century. Those who brandish the term “isolationism,” while not formally defining it, usually apply it to the U.S. stance during the interwar period, in which the country refused to join the League of Nations, and especially to the staunch opponents of America’s involvement in World War II in the period immediately prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Wayne S. Cole, who until his retirement was the pre-eminent historian of the American “isolationism” of the immediate pre-World War II era, provides the following description of the group commonly designated by that term: “Isolationists did not want the United States to cut itself off from the rest of the world or even from Europe . . . . Central themes in isolationist attitudes were ‘unilateralism’ and ‘noninterventionism.’ As ‘unilateralists’ they opposed ‘entangling alliances.’ They did not believe the United States could prevent wars through cooperation with European states. They feared that international commitments would involve the United States unnecessarily in the wars that inevitably swept other parts of the world. They determined to maintain maximum sovereignty and freedom of action for the United States. Most of them opposed membership in the League of Nations and World Court.” (Cole, An Interpretative History of American Foreign Relations, Homewood, IL., Dorsey, 1968, pp. 393)

Cole continues: “As ‘non-interventionists’ they believed the United States could and should have stayed out of World War I. . . . From 1939 to 1941 noninterventionists believed it was more important for the United States to stay out of the European war than it was to assure a British victory over the Axis.” (Cole, Interpretative History, pp. 393-94)

As Cole’s description should make clear, the critics of America’s wars today differ in significant ways from the pre-World War II isolationists. Primarily, the current critics are not necessarily unilateralist opponents of international political cooperation, and often base some of their criticism of America’s wars on an internationalist standard and how such activities make enemies for the U. S. throughout the world. It was the Bush administration, in contrast, that took a strictly unilateralist stance in invading Iraq without UN sanction. And it was the Bush administration that showed indifference to the World Court and international law in its war policy, claiming that its citizens could not be prosecuted by the World Court for any war crimes.

In the mainstream media, the World War II isolationist position is portrayed as self-evidently wrong—selfish, short-sighted, and even, in some cases, treasonous. As Patrick J. Buchanan points out in A Republic Not an Empire (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1999), however, this view is not so self-evident, since the results of World War II simply replaced the danger of Nazi Germany with that of the Soviet Union, which in a number of respects posed an even greater threat to the U.S. And in terms of morality did the US intervention save lives? This is hardly obvious since millions of innocent civilians were killed in the war and its aftermath and millions more would be forced to live under totalitarian tyranny. [This argument is also made by Bruce M. Russett, No Clear And Present Danger: A Skeptical View Of The United States Entry Into World War II, New York, Harper & Row, 1972 ]

But even if the American isolationists had been wrong about World War II, this would hardly mean that all war interventionism is good. Was it obviously beneficial for the United States to engage in a ground war in Indochina, invade Iraq and depose the democratic government in Iran in 1953. Might not a policy of “isolationism” have been preferable in these cases?

Certainly during the latter part of the Cold War, mainstream liberals seriously questioned American interventionist policy. The slogan of the Democratic candidate for president in 1972, George McGovern, was “Come Home, America.” Even the architect of the policy of American “containment” of Soviet Communism, George F. Kennan, was highly critical of America’s global implementation of this strategy in areas that went far beyond what he considered America’s vital interests in Europe. To add a personal note, during my undergraduate and graduate education in the 1960s and 1970s, I don’t recall one professor of history actually praising America’s global interventionism; they differed only in their degrees of criticism of U.S. policy and the motives behind it.

Yale historian Paul Kennedy’s 1987 book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” popularized the idea of “imperial overstretch” (also known as “imperial overreach”) among the educated public, which holds that an empire can extend itself to the point where it becomes so costly that it eventually overburdens the economic base of the country, causing national decline. Such imperialist overcommitment, according to Kennedy, had brought about the decline of Spain in the early 18th century and Britain in the early twentieth century and now threatened the United States. Since Kennedy expressed this view before the United States had begun its wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, one would think that the problem has become considerably worse. Furthermore, it would seem that America’s current economic crisis serves to validate this thesis.

Now to underscore the point that I have been attempting to make: Before the fall of the Soviet Union, even much of mainstream opinion had turned decidedly against America’s global interventionism. However, after the United States has engaged in destructive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed and wounded thousands of American soldiers, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, turned entire regions against the United States and contributed to the near, if not actual, bankruptcy of the US government, mainstream commentators are now ironically warning about the dangers of “isolationism.” Illustrating this view, David Greenberg wrote in the New York Times: “A healthy democracy needs critics, particularly when it engages in risky overseas adventures. But the doctrinaire call to drastically scale back our global leadership role has usually led us into error, making the world a more chaotic and dangerous place. Following the path of isolationism today won’t serve America well. Nor will it help the Republicans.” Considering the expansiveness of America’s global military presence, warning about the dangers of “isolationism” is tantamount to warning a 400 pound man about the dangers of anorexia when he announces his intention to go on a diet!

But let us now look at the issue of “isolationism” through the lens of universalism. How does a policy of “isolationism” apply to the external policies of other countries. Would not it have been better if Germany and Japan had practiced a policy of “isolationism” in the 1930s and refrained from conquering their neighbors? Does not the United States demand that Iran be “isolationist” and not get involved in affairs outside its borders? As the late illimitable Joe Sobran wrote in the 1990s, “Americans who think America should behave like other countries are ‘isolationists,’ whereas other countries that behave like America are ‘rogue nations.’”

To better understand the situation, it would be more appropriate to refer to the critics of American global interventionism as anti-imperialists or anti-hegemonists rather than isolationists. For what America has created is hegemony or an empire. That is certainly how the rest of the world sees America’s global military presence. And it is exactly what Americans would call comparable activities by other countries.

For example, the United States condemns Iran for intervening in the affairs of Iraq, including its alleged support for Shi’ite militia groups there. Iran, of course, borders Iraq and was invaded by it in 1980 in a war that lasted until 1988 in which it suffered heavy losses. Iran obviously has an important security stake in the internal affairs of Iraq. In contrast, according to the American view, the United States, although located roughly 8000 miles from Iraq, has a right to invade that country and replace its government with one it considers more palatable.. Similarly, Iran has provided support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to Hamas in Palestine to enable them to resist Israel. The U.S. condemns this as aiding “terrorism.” When the United States has provided aid to innumerable rebel groups throughout the world, it’s presented as aiding “freedom fighters.” It’s apparent the United States expects Iran to remain isolated within its borders, while the United States sees it to be its right to act as the global hegemon. The United States certainly does not abide by universalist standards.

The elite, including the media elite, are wedded to the existing situation either out of personal interest or by their obeisance to the regnant ideas. Neocons and other members of the Israel lobby need an interventionist policy to enhance the security of their beneficiary. Much of the traditional foreign policy establishment that was cool toward initiating war in the Middle East nonetheless does not want to draw back from international intervention in general; in fact, its lack of ardor for the war in the Middle East rested on the belief that such military involvement in that region was detrimental to America’s overall global military presence. And certainly the military-industrial complex has a definite financial stake in maintaining America’s existing imperial order. Most of the media elite currently repeat the conventional wisdom. .

If these were normal times, it would be highly unlikely that the popular will would overcome this establishment power. But these are not normal times. The government cannot simply afford to maintain its global thrust by going farther and farther into debt. The American people along with much of the business community are unwilling to preserve military spending while drastically paring down domestic programs and increasing taxation. Both the political right and left are looking at the military spending as an area to cut.

In short, the establishment’s desire to preserve America’s globalist imperialism has been mugged by economic reality. This policy cannot be maintained for long since it must rest on a strong economic base. Economic decline, however, does not preclude the U.S. from launching shorter term, shock and awe attacks in the Middle East such as bombing Iran, which would fall short of the full scale occupation of Iraq but could exceed that invasion in terms of intensity.

“I’ve been around the movement for quite a while,” said Homeless Jack.

“One of the things I see from time to time is that someone who supposedly was generally on our side of things suddenly switches sides and starts making a living as a reformed ‘hater.’

“Usually, these sad types are neurotic and they came to our side for the wrong reasons. They thought we were all about hate, and since they were so full of irrational hate because of their neuroses they felt warm and comfortable among some on our side who tend in that direction.

“They hated their parents. They hated school. They hated everyone. And, instead of seeing other races as just other variations of the human type, they hated them. This set up a straw man in their minds that was easily knocked over once they realized that their comic book views of other types of humans weren’t always true.

“Now, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but maybe some others have come to our way of thinking as I have.

“You see, I’ve come to my beliefs not because of hate or false ideas, but because I have set out to understand the human condition and the ways of existence. My attitude toward other races is indifference.

“All my life, I’ve kept an open mind and I’ve tried to learn from all sources and from nature about why we’re here and what our purpose is and the other big questions of existence.

“I won’t bore you will everything right now, man, but let me tell you how I came to understand race.

“I believe that all life started on Earth from a single molecule of DNA–a simple core code composed of four basic chemicals–that in some unknown way made the leap from so-called non-living matter to living matter.

“That single molecule multiplied and expanded.

“As it did so, it constantly changed and adapted as it expanded into different environments. When the temperature changed for a long time, it changed to be more comfortable in the new temperature. When conditions became dry it changed. When they became wet, it changed. Where there was water, it developed gills. Where there was sky, it developed wings. You get the idea, man. It changed to be comfortable and to prosper under the new conditions.

“That core DNA code “wanted” to survive. It wanted to live. It wanted to be comfortable. Nature found a way to give it eternal life–by having it constantly make all sorts of life forms while remaining the same at its core.

“Those life forms that did the best job of carrying the core DNA code dominated their niches simply because they competed better and won the survival contest over other life forms.

“But, no life form can rest on its laurels. Nature–the eternal trial and error engineer and eternal tinkerer keeps changing things as it always does in our spinning existence.

“Nature is never satisfied with what it creates and it constantly changes the DNA code, which changes the genes, so that some form of life will always improve and expand and feel comfortable in every possible niche of existence. These processes of change we call evolution. And, they include mutations, adaptations, survival of the fittest, eternal struggle to dominate, and much more.

“Eventually, the natural processes of evolution led to human beings. But, the processes of evolution are never finished. Human beings began to branch off into different types as they adapted to different conditions. This led to the present sub-species of human beings which we call races.

“The White race is one of those sub-species. We evolved out of the dark masses and we adapted to the less sunny parts of the Earth by having white skin that allows us to produce more Vitamin D than other peoples. But, the thing about genes is that they often control more than one thing at a time. So, when our genes mutated to produce white skin, they also produced other things including the way we think and other unseen things.

“Now, the way it works is that all sub-species in nature will eventually become separate species if there is no gene transfer among the various sub-species.

“If there is gene transfer (miscegenation), a sub-species will blend back into the masses from which it evolved and will become extinct as a separate type.

“Whites, because we are a fairly recent splitting off, have many recessive genetic traits. Recessive just means that it takes two copies of the gene to produce a child with those traits. This means that it takes a White mother and a White father to produce a truly White child. A White parent and any other type of human will not produce one of us.

“Thus, we must live in lands only with our own people to prevent gene transfer. Allowing in vast numbers of others to our lands (no matter the content of their character) is a danger to our survival as a separate people.

“You see, man, other forms of humans are a danger to us even when they mean us no harm. This is because so many of our genes are recessive that we blend back in with them when we have children with them. We get reabsorbed into the darker masses, man.

“Now, you may think that’s not a problem because a human is produced when we mate with those unlike us, but if you believe that it is important for us to remain a white people with all our core characteristics, then you can see why we must remain a separate people and why we must bear children only with our own people. And, why we must bear many children.

“No hate, man, just a desire to evolve on the trajectory that some of us believe is right for us and our desire to survive as the distinct people that we are. We have that right to survive as we want man. That’s our natural right as human beings. Some want to kill us off as a distinct people, but they have no right to do that.

“I believe that we are at the point in our evolution that we must take a hand in how we not move forward. If we don’t, nature won’t care, we’ll just become extinct as we blend back in to the masses of humanity. It is us who must take personal and group responsibility to evolve in the way that is best for us.

“And, what is that way that is best for us, man? It is to become more “white” not less so. That is the way to the light. That is the way up.”

“Each of us has a slightly different version of the DNA code. And the principle of competition exists right within our own bodies as parts of the code in the form of genes try to be the dominant ones.

“This principle of competition exists throughout all of existence, man. So, the version of the DNA code that is me, wants to be dominant and this has me have as many children as possible in my lifetime.

“Those who are childless or who have too few children or who practice miscegenation are the losers, man. They are extinction walking. My DNA code carried by my descendants will dance on their graves and maybe in the future, all white people will be descended from me, man. Or, maybe from you if you have many, many children in your image.”

Contents:

Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class;

Corporeal Self And Functions of The Autobiographical Self;

Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s;

Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan;

Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization.

Introduction

I was actually quite happy with the theoretical discussion from last time – “Praxis: Getting the Ship of White Separatism on Course” – and that, to me, is surprising, unusual for a theoretical discussion – normally for a discussion of that length and complexity regarding theoretical matters, there would be something gnawing at me – that was not the case. There is nothing that I would change, only a few things that could use more clarification; after that, some ideas to expand upon.

Thus, it is not surprising that I was not quite as satisfied with my more recent discussion, on The Incommensurate Intersection of White Individuation and Gender Agendas.

First, to clarify matters of the prior discussion: the most fundamental point that we made is that anti-racism is Cartesian – it is not innocent; it is prejudice; it is hurting and it is killing people.

Specifically, how it is that anti-racism is not innocent

Now, how is that so? Well, in prohibiting the validity of racial classifications and discrimination on the basis of those classifications, systems of accountability and ecology are being abrogated such that those marginalized, for whatever reason, in the systemic process of what would have been, for example, the White class, are vulnerable to exploitation and to being killed off.

Ok, so we’ve asserted that anti racism is Cartesian, that it is not innocent, it is in fact prejudice, hurting and killing people It is prejudice against anybody who is not on top of the process at the moment; anybody who is the least bit reliant on their class. We may add that is operationally verifiable and warrantably assertable.

For a concrete example of its incursion upon the group evolutionary process of Whites; by breaking down The White class boundaries, the way is opened for opportunistic outsiders – as such, they can even take “the cream of the crop.” As happens for example, through Jewish propagandizing of young White girls, in earlier stages of their normal evolutionary process; put into interaction with Blacks, who have a faster sexual maturity as Rushton points out.

Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class

This breaking down of class bounds is done largely by a phony notion of leftism promoted by Jews; normal leftism would be about the full white class, including, those marginalized within the class – marginals can be significant in that they have more of a vested interest in the maintenance of the class boundaries as they are somewhat less independent; and they also comprise some of those in earlier stages of development, such as the young White girl who will one day be the cream of the crop; developmental processes are not something handled well by the Cartesian and anti-social notion of civil individual rights – even within a life span, let alone a developmental unit of analysis that might recognize many generations. But Jewish elites, as usual, have perverted what would be the remedial leftist notion, instead defining marginals as those outside of the class, defining outside groups, non-whites, as marginals.

We’ve been blinded by Cartesianism and have thus allowed this hideous exploitation to be carried off, this distortion of individualism, civil rights, and gender relations.

We have asserted that this destruction of White class bounds results from modernity’s scientism leaving us vulnerable – as such a bit naively to the machinations of Jewish and other non-White group interests; as well as to the interests of the plutocrats, corporatists and the military industrial complex

To correct this, we propose the post modern turn to re-invoke the legitimacy of the White Class.

The management of that protracted scope, of the class, requires the analog capacity of metaphors to some extent; last time, I went rather abruptly into a discussion of the importance of metaphors without providing a little background that The Vienna School of Logical Positivism tried and failed to create a language free of metaphor. Just as well, since metaphors are apparently necessary for managing wider frames of analysis, such as patterns of the White Class.

The hermeneutic turn was an embracing of this, seeing that we could not and should not seek to free ourselves of narrative and historical perspective. We’ll show how that can work in moment.

The postmodern, social and hermeneutic notion of coherence is necessary to the management of our White class.

The failure of logical positivism, as it was trying to nail everything to a graspable empirical foundation, brings me to the next matter that would have called for more elaboration from last time – in focusing on the process of interactive engagement with the objects of inquiry, I neglected some the furtive, social aspect of scientific study as premisary – something that our friend Gregor reminded us of with this quote from Thomas Kuhn, underscoring that collegial and social aspect of scientific endeavor as preliminary: quote ‘a paradigm governs, in the first instance, not a subject matter, but rather a group of practitioners.”

The articulation and definition attempted here corresponds well with Sunic’s project to disentangle useful notions – in this case disentangle them from Jewish corruption. For example, Leftism should be for us – since it should represent the interests of our full class, our relative concerns as a socially related group; as opposed to Rightist objectivism beyond accountability and beyond us. One thing that may cause Whites to flee to the right is the false attribution that it is the only harbor of truth and moral order. There has never been anarchy. On the contrary, there is no avoiding truth and moral order; there will always be things we can, might or cannot do; and these concerns are better managed and best consciously so with the class outlook of the left. For prime example, voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls, absolute monogamy, as a sacrament should be institutionalized as viable option for whomever would choose it. Another thing that may cause us to flee in the counter productive direction of the right, and against our full class interests as Whites, is the idea that we could lose our individuality – so important to us as Whites.

Corporeal Self And Functions of The Autobiographical Self

Since our culture maintains the importance of individuality for some good reasons we must tease it apart from right wing attributions that serve Jewish interests – in particular, the portrayal of us as inhumane.

Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world. The postmodern notion of coherence recognizes the contingent, interactive and relational aspects of individualism. This is not coherentism – coherentism would be the lineal, modern, Cartesian and impervious notion of coherence as it pursues a fixed Archimedean point beyond nature.

This “modernist”, Cartesian notion of coherence lent itself to individualism in the empirical conception of civil rights by Locke, in which individuals are tabula rasa – that is, out of context and process and therefore given an absurd attribution of sameness or equality to everyone; from whom they were otherwise detached – this is corrected with this hermeneutic notion of individualism wherein people do have some shared reference through the internal relation of co-evolution and language (there is no private language); however, everyone does not have the same and equal perceptions, but rather people occupy different positions in process and in situations; are immersed in different narrative reference, frames, history, different logics of meaning and action, stages in developmental process, conversations interacting in ways that can change their meaning, different social conversations attributing vastly different values, levels of importance, and thus can have vastly different evaluations of what they perceive. Though it is not absolutely necessary, if there is to be a successful notion of the individual, since we as White people like to invoke individuality for particular reasons, we go with the notion that there are two important aspects of individuality, the corporeal and the autobiographical. This has got to be managed in a non-Cartesian sense of connecting and managing a back and forth relation of self from the more empirical to the more narrative – thus, replacing a fixed location for the self with a self more like an on-going film reel.

Otherwise, as William James observed, with the Cartesian notion of self, absurdly, one would have to be in two places at once. Harré piled on that the “mind” is a four letter word and it should not be used; taking a page from Nietzsche, said that psychologists think that they are drawing maps of the mind, when in fact they are really only drawing maps of maps – not describing, but making interpretations of interpretations, taking out of context what is being done. By contrast, the autobiographical self is narrative, an ongoing process; not being a static monadic entity, one can negotiate obstacles such as paradoxes and apparent contradictions through various amendments in narrative; coming back to coherence through the tacking back and forth – such as post modern coherence affords in recognizing interaction and contingency.

While recognizing social construction and the class of Whites as preliminary to the individual, that nobody exists outside of interaction, relation and the negotiation of how things count with others – and any honest notion of individuality is accountable as such – there are certain aspects of what we may call individualism that are more than valid. I’ll share with you a few that I have gleaned from Harré, a professor from Oxford.

That is, that there are two kinds of self, a corporeal and an autobiographical.

Our corporeal, embodied selves are profound; Nietzsche might say, bound to be wiser than our conscious selves and intentions, having evolved over tens of thousands of years. This makes me a bit wary of eugenics; it is also why I would recommend that anyone pay attention to the clues that our biology is giving us rather than trying to alter it with chemicals or surgery – rather, one ought to turn critical attention outward to social expectations – who is reasonable, who is not.

But while there are aspects of agency to our corporeal, physical self, in say, a clasping action; deliberated, planned coherence, and the accountability, agency and warrant that go along with it require an autobiographical notion of self.

This second, autobiographical aspect of the self in the post modern is opposed to the modernist notion of self – the static and monadic self of Freudian psychology, unfolding toward its ultimate telos, detached from the social world and doing all sorts of horrible things; having hidden wishes, neuroses, latencies, or whatever one might libel you with.

Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; by establishing rules and coming back to the said course one can provide accounts against false and negative accusations.

Moreover, it is by interacting with others and receiving requests for accounts, Shotter explains, that one develops a narrative understanding of self – in fact, one depends upon these requests for an account – as there is no private language.

Thus, one is not only curing the maladies of Cartesianism through autobiographical coherence of self – in appropriating from the available conversations one may also establish agency by setting down these rules for one’s self; by referring back to them one has proof that one is following the rule of their own choice – thus, an agent.

Remember, we said that the optimally competent post modern individual can choose to participate in traditional forms, can reconstruct the White class without the pangs of self loathing for appearing as a conformist – appearing traditional or conformist being taboos to modernity – which over values change, innovation, being new and different – nevertheless, the post modern individual can choose to disengage from traditional practices in order to make innovations; while being above the modernist paradox – the paradox – be different so you can fit in.

The autobiographical self facilitates coherence, accountability, agency and warrant through the establishment of rules; more, it enables the self to negotiate contradictions, paradoxes and obstacles because it is not lineal and strictly bound within the physical body. Unlike Africans, for example, who will often assert themselves episodically, momentarily, this autobiographical notion is particularly important to Europeans who are more sublimated and thus are normally, of their corporeality, not going to show their best attributes in an episode but rather over a pattern of behaviors in the protracted span that the class facilitates. Thus, if we are to capture our sublime features, which are not evident within the moment and episode, we especially require an autobiographical notion of self.

Finally, by following up on these rules set forth and yielding proof of positive results, the autobiographical self establishes warrant for proactive endeavor.

Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s

Now then, the idea of a hermeneutic self is at least to some extent following through on Heidegger’s philosophy. For me, a crucial moment of understanding came when I took a bit of Heidegger’s advice and set my life into a historical, narrative perspective.

I set the autobiography of my early formative years against the background of The Viet Nam War, and a tension between hippies and feminists. From there things began to make sense.

Hippies were not a trivial movement in my assessment. They were against going to war out of habit – wars just seemed to be an endless thing taken for granted. By contrast, the hippies were about taking for granted the right of the male of the species to Be. My first clue that Being was a central issue to the Hippie movement was the January 1967 Be-In in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park – sort of an inauguration to the Hippie movement in popular culture.

Then clues started forming a pattern. Most clarifying that it had to do with the Being of males as the essence of the Hippie movement – in particular, a song from the rock opera, “Hair”, called “My Conviction”, trivial on the surface of it, proposing that it was a legitimate expression for males to rebel against Spartan military terms and take on some of the attributes normally associated with females…long hair, elaborate attire and so on, to symbolize that their DNA had similar intrinsic genetic value to females…other songs from Hair made a similar point – Walking in Space: “pretending it’s a chore to ship us of to war.. ..in this great dive we rediscover sensation, how dare they try to end this beauty” – they weren’t shipping women off to war.

Paul Tillich, in his book “The Courage to Be” just before the onset of the hippie movement, suggested that one must love one’s self enough to accept in one’s self that which is unacceptable – that sounded like Being to me; a lot like Hippie Being. Now, before you say that I am promoting nihilism, irresponsibility and a lack of accountability, you must understand that Tillich’s existential project was to make our involvement in the world sufficiently relative – certainly enough so that we may begin to see that what we were told was unacceptable in no uncertain, objective terms, just may be more relative than we thought – in fact, may finally be relatively acceptable upon deeper thought – as are the interests of our White Class – relative to our class.

This notion of Being would also be related to a respect for the ordinary organic processes of the corporeal self, such as its need for food and sleep – as in Søren Kierkagaard’s statement that “sleeping is the highest genius”

Heidegger’s ongoing philosophical concern for the importance of Being provided for me a farther clue that the Hippies might be about something vital. Now, I take Heidegger’s talk of Being for this context in the more normal, organic sense, to be like a slow meandering, taking poetic forms, poesis, an unfolding that allows for a fully ruminated understanding, a taking to heart what is essential from that and giving thanks.

In Heidegger-like fashion, there was a corollary in being’s etymology; the notion of let me Be – as in, leave me alone; I do not want to go to Viet Nam to die for whatever perceived reasons.

Being is about the very struggle for existence that we as awakened Whites take as the vital cause for our people.

Rollo May described the hippie movement as a call for a right below rights – so we were looking at the most fundamental, radical part of the hierarchy of motives.

This was not trivial. It was a war protest against the background of the Viet Nam war, recognizing intrinsic value in males who were considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to Viet Nam and die for yet another in a succession of corporate, military industrial complex affairs, for tire rubber, whatever. Against that background, women were indeed, a bit more obliged than usual to allow White males to Be – understood in a sense related to the corporeal self, of fundamental organic pattern, attributing its intrinsic value to their evolution and DNA.

Now I am decidedly not recommending a return to hippie times; but I do want to cull the valid aspects, to some extent, in a way that I will discuss in moment, for the purpose of negotiating White gender relations.

I have rarely heard positive things said about the Hippies, and especially not by White Separatists. But let me tell you some things – look at Wood Stock, for example.. you can see my brother in one picture; he was there.. you’ll see some Blacks, but not many…and it was my experience as a child and a young adolescent during the later stages of those times, that the essence of the Hippie movement, had nothing to do with Black civil rights – that was peripheral at most. That stuff was imposed and co-opted by Jewish interests. It is yet another case of having to disentangle Jewish co-option from an idea. My friends and I had long hair, we did the Hippie thing, and none of us liked Blacks – some less than others; we saw the violent, destructive race riots, we saw them at school and were forced to recognize them as other people, with another agenda, behaving differently, aggressively, about their dignity or integrity, whatever…

Another thing – I would not say that it was accurate to characterize us as pacifists. Though we were too young to be subject to the draft, I am sure that what we would have been against having to go to these huge, nonsensical, corporate wars. Nevertheless, each of us would have fought and violently so, if necessary, for what was rightfully ours. It was about the Being, the intrinsic value of the White male and what was rightfully ours as established through co-evolution.

Nor was the Hippie movement about fee love. Not as it was a movement for male being, as I submit it was; free love was just neo-traditional incitement. We liked girls, of course; but what does it matter if a male announces he wants “free love”? I don’t think that is going to go over too big coming from many men. Now, if women say that they want free love, of course that can be meaningful. But, again, this was more a Jewish imposition, pandering to women and receiving impetus from Herbert Marcus’s Eros and Civilization, his call for polymorphous perversion; along with some aspects of the women’s liberation movement and so on. So again, we need to disentangle the Jewish influence from the idea of Hippies for those who would try to say it was all about free love and sexual revolution.

Now, the Hippies were guilty of some things – I do not believe that they were sufficiently intellectual or articulate as a group. I think that had to do with their very agenda – Being was not a theoretically ambitious, rigorous endeavor precisely because it was about natural, organic being. Even so prominent a Hippie as John Lennon was inarticulate as to the movement – saying things like, “it was a great way to pick up girls.” But it was not so shallow as a mere technique to do just that. Nevertheless, one can see the precariousness and vulnerability of males trying to assert their right, for lack of a better word, to Be (wimp, lazy bum). But I see hope in its requirement, as Being necessitates borders and action to reconstruct the White class boundaries somewhere along the line, in process – There is no being without that, for anybody.

Had Hippies been sufficiently articulate, they would have established that Being requires a notion of sex as sacrament – voluntary enclaves of those committed to a single sex partner for life – without that option, that unused potentiality for change, choice and freedom of being are enormously reduced

Drug experimentation and use was an aspect of the Hippie thing. And though I tend to agree with those who consider that a public health and not a criminal issue; and that it is more an effect than a cause of problems (specifically, one is searching for Being) I am not so uncritical of drugs as I once was.

It was a part of it though, of Being for males, because it was a way to have fun, elaborate, engage and tap into organic processes that did not the involve the sometimes stringent expectations of females.

However, before it sounds like I am the drug advocate: I would just say, alcohol, marijuana and mushrooms maybesometimes if you’ve developed yourself enough, your forebrain and a philosophical understanding of yourself enough – maybe, so long as that it does not make you neurotic, arbitrarily destructive, whatever – even so, be careful. Even with weed, you are still putting smoke in your lungs and they have bred it so that it is very strong nowadays. I’ve heard of people having bad experiences with mushrooms – though it was almost always the case that they took a massive over dose. Cocaine, I think is very dangerous; you’ve never felt better for 15 minutes and then you’ve never felt worse.. ..because your brain stopped producing all the endorphins that it took the cocaine crystal to be.. you lose all balance of pleasure….life is just utterly sad and miserable..so much so that when someone has committed suicide, it is my first hypothesis that they were coming down off of cocaine. I imagine other synthetic drugs are similar…crystal meth and so on..don’t know from experience; but, I want to go back to the corporeal and its profound evolution. when you mess with substances you are messing with profound evolution. which we should tend to believe is normally correct, not in need of alteration. However, I must say that people who have never used any mind alteration often turn out weird, superficial and inhumane. Nevertheless, by and large, better to err in the direction of dealing with your emotions and developing your intellect; rather be critical of the social realm, to look for problems there than in solution from drugs – intellectualism, which the hippies were short on, is better. Even so, despite drug use, that was not the essential issue of the Hippies – it was about Being, especially for the male of the species.

Pardon the digression – but the issue of Hippies was Being for White males. It was not trivial – in fact it is necessary and an issue that has not been resolved to this day – its incommensuration with the agendas of feminist and neo-traditional women.

Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan

Getting back to the hermeneutic context of my narrative history…in the 60’s. While the Hippies were about the right of the White male of the species to Be the distinguishing aspect coming from feminists was in the opposite direction. Not about the base of the hierarchy, organic being, but about achievement.

In moving to the discussion of gender relations, to feminism, I want to begin by acknowledging that I think that Peter Schaenk has established a good starting point – citing Karl Marx’s statement that marriage is institutionalized slavery of women and therefore liberation of women is necessary to the liberation of human kind. That would characterize the agenda of radical feminists; their liberation would supposedly necessitate the destruction of the White Class. It is not that monogamy and marriage are not important, they are – our moral order requires the institutionalization of absolute monogamy (for life) and marriage as sacred – and must necessarily be defended against this – but the boundary of the class is even more fundamental. Otherwise, marriage is just a berth on a sinking ship. This was an attack on the White Class, its central, most vital alliance, between women and men; farther assaulted, of course, by the Authoritarian Personality, Adorno et al.

That is why it is so necessary to use the post modern turn, the decidedly non-Cartesian notion of our co-evolution as White men and Women, to reassert the validity of the White Class and its boundaries.

There are no White women or White children without White men – that is where the validity of White male Being, existence, gains more respect; but only if the troubling tautology on this level is over come – hard to acknowledge for its base simplicity: no White women and children without White men; I don’t like you because you do not like me; she rejects me and so, liking myself, I reject her and have freedom to seek another.

We are born to love women. What could be more painful and destructive than to have our co-evolutionary women pitted against us? We are mammals, despite the Jewish Matrix flouting of that notion, and as mammals we are deeply caring about relationships.

We can work out an all around fair and satisfying management of White gender relations if those bounds that recognize our mutual interests are made clear.

Back to the radical feminists attacking the White class. The first prominent exponent of feminism relevant to us as White separatists would be Simone de Beauvoir, 1948. She followed Marx’s line. As Sandrine Dauphin wrote:

[De Beauvoir] became more radical in the sense that the means of liberation became specific to women, they deal with individual experience: “I am for the abolition of the family. It is through the intermediary of the family that the patriarchal world exploits women.” She excludes feminism from institutional politics yet integrates it in revolutionary politics, which socially, economically and culturally overturns society. She made feminism into the avant-garde of the socialist revolution, recognizing that the suppression of the family and familial structures would upset capitalism. Since women constitute the primary oppressed group, their liberation, in a domino effect, would spur the liberation of other oppressed groups.

By eliminating the family, feminism would thus transform the structure of society. Simone de Beauvoir turns feminism into much more than the demand for equality between men and women. It has a political function, by proposing an alternative management of society. In this way, she remained quite socialist and refined her reflection to the point of giving feminism the magnitude of a true political movement. Socialism is a body of thought, and feminism as such, according to Simone de Beauvoir, is an integral part of socialism.

We might note first of all of de Beauvoir that her analysis of men focuses on male elites only, such as Leo Tolstoy. She pays no attention to ordinary men, let alone the ones really down on their luck. She has nothing to say here of the millions who have been considered so intrinsically valueless as to be required to die in war. Nevertheless, there is enough scholarly background in her work to have provided inspiration and apparatus for succeeding generations of feminists.

Exactly. Interestingly, I traced the two next important feminists each as having their inspirational source in a single line from de Beauvoir: Betty Friedan, Jewish, 1963, who took feminism in a modernist direction in the Feminine Mystique; and Carol Gilligan, 1983, from Harvard, who also took as her point of departure another line in de Beauvoir.

Don’t worry, we’re not getting off track, we’re going to show how this bears upon the post modern turn for Whites in their effort to reconstruct and advance the White class.

de Beauvoir was primarily paying attention to elite White men; and Friedan followed that lead, focusing on the top as well. Before discussing Friedan, the exemplar and probably most influential of the American feminists, I’d like to make some honorable mentions.

Helen Gurley Brown, Jewish – founding editor of the highly popular Cosmopolitan magazine: I could see that her book “Sex and the Single Girl” was based on Søren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or” – her gist being that a girl either remains ‘as virginal as a Sunkist orange’ or she goes ahead and has sex outside of marriage; she is going to suffer either way, so may as well have the enjoyment of sex – makes quick work of accountability; and any treatment of sex as being important, let alone an option to treat it as sacral; an option I would recommend as essential to freedom in allowing for choice; and toward the survival of Whites through a fair management of the White pattern.

An honorable mention also goes to Gloria Steinham – Jewish. Interestingly, 1973 was the only year that her magazine, Ms., made money. Another honorable mention to Elizabeth Holtzman, Jewish, whose popularity came at the same time, when she shockingly unseated the long term incumbent, the infamous Emmanuel Cellar – his already having achieved his dirty work destroying America’s White Class bounds as the architect of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, pushed through in of 1965 – which, MacDonald pointed out, transformed America’s demographic make up toward non-White – Holtzman ousting Cellar by running on an Equal Rights for Women Amendment. This also suspiciously marks an important time in our hermeneutic regarding the Hippies – As The Viet Nam War was just ending, the Hippie movement lost impetus almost over night. Suddenly the impetus behind male Being was completely gone; not having to shoulder the guilt of their clear expendability in the war, White male Being was eclipsed by the prerogatives of Jewish feminism.

Popular and radical feminism’s ascent was held in place by a paradox; by radical leftists gaining tenure at universities; set into systemic runaway by modernist feminists such as Friedan; and only slightly balanced later by neo-traditionalist feminists.

Feminism’s overtaking male being was strengthened through an important paradox – a problematic practice as noted by Pearce and Rossi in the early 80’s: Even well meaning males can always be put in the wrong within the problematic practices of feminism – Specifically, if he tries to treat her as an equal, just like one of the boys in accordance with modernist feminism, then he can be taken for a “male chauvinist pig” who sees the world only in male terms, not respecting the special qualities of her gender; on the other hand, if he attempts to treat her gingerly, with traditionalist deference and respect for the special qualities of her gender, then he can be construed as a ‘wimp’ and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her autonomy, choice and agency. Thus, a male can always be construed as “wimp” or a “pig”, no matter what he does.

Furthering this systemic runaway in gender relations was the Marxists long march through the institutions – with anti-White leftists gaining tenured professorships in the universities the runaway effect of gender estrangement gained velocity; these tenured professors pandering and being pandered to by 18-24 year olds, reconstructing the same anti-White world view in perpetuity. This was farther exacerbated by the fact that the university, being a big business, is largely in the big business of selling talk.

This, by itself, creates a need for abnormal talk – viz. something to say other than ordinary, stable White life – something “interesting”, exceptions to discuss as liberals (liberals leftists, those who do not have a problem with broaching White class bounds) like to do – perhaps they do not want to be bored – too low on the hierarchy; or perhaps the ordinary is not novel and entertaining enough to collect tuition dollars.

Backing up a bit, in order to further trace sources of this runaway effect and hopefully gain some control: despite its awkward match with men getting sent to Viet Nam to die, feminism was very prominent in the context of America beginning in the 60’s – with Helen Gurley Brown’s popular Sex and The Single Girl, 1962, and Betty Friedan’s academically backed “The Feminine Mystique”, 1963.

I noticed something interesting in Friedan – that not only was she as student of Abraham Maslow’s but she was actually using his Hierarchy of Motives, in proposing that women were being made neurotic by having their higher individual potentials denied by traditional gender roles – this was to my theoretical delight as I was already thinking in terms of setting gender relations into Maslow’s hierarchy in order to understand them and try to work them out fairly in a theoretical sense. Maslow’s hierarchy of motives proposed that people sought fulfillment on higher levels successively, as basic levels of need were satisfied – from survival and safety, the most basic, and ultimately to the quote, farther reaches, self-actualization as highest. With that, Friedan proposed that women needed individual actualization in order to be liberated from the limitations of their traditionally imposed gender role, which she called The Feminine Mystique; as it was causing misery and neuroses – something that was being foisted upon women by Madison Avenue image makers in order to sell them products as housewives, to keep them limited and out of the work force now that they were no longer necessary as workers with men having come back from World War II.

This is a distinctly modernist notion of individualism that she maintained – and of gender relations as well, with individual women having the same needs as men, culture irrespective.

I traced Friedan’s seminal influence to a single line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.” Thus, in the Feminine Mystique, she is doing something important in a negative sense, by going along with this rejection of Aristotle’s sage advice that human’s, being biological, are evolved for optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction; she is advocating for the toxicity of quantification and runaway. This clued me farther to take a critical view toward reworking this modernist paradigm of Maslow’s, in favor of a framework providing for an optimal management of needs rather than a hierachical maximization and quantification of needs.

A typically American thing is self actualization and self maximization – .a be all you can be mentality that has undoubtedly contributed to America’s runaway. Nevertheless, I do not think it would be wise, like Marxists, to try to thwart human achievement; however, it should be taken back into the context of an optimal management; indeed, those moments of accomplishment and recognition prompting one to turn away from the toxicities of additional maximization; rather to turn attention to the fostering grounds, the processes of Being, Selfhood, and most especially, of Socialization to be as respected as Actualization. In fact, for us, as Whites now, the greatest measure of Self Actualization will be those who are able to effect Socialization of the White Class; its boundaries in securing the existence of our people and a future for White Children.

The post modern program is to manage qualitatively formed progress and reconstruction; to manage optimality as opposed to maximization, quantification and lineal progress

The most important thing that I have to do is to assist in the relative devaluing of actualization, and the establishment of Being’s importance along with the elevation of selfhood – that is, take ordinary routines to commensurate value, and first and foremost, of socialization.

Now again, the post modern, hermeneutic turn calls for a tacking back and forth as need be from close readings of physical facts then balanced with a protracted narrative, somewhat metaphoric frames of analysis – and then back again and so on, in a processual management – as opposed to a rigid and false quest for fixed, Archemedian points imagined outside of nature.

I do not aspire to do away with the notion of actualization, but to put it into balance; “I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns”, Bateson said, “that is the rubric under which we meet, but what you may not know is that you have to accept them.” In striving singularly after actualization and its maximization, there are going to be reflexive reversals and aberration – a calling back to pattern, in other words; as we were called back to our White pattern after being brain washed that we did not have to accept it.

“Patterns”, being a closer reading (but still open ended) of the corporeal side, and “narrative” on the more speculative and metaphoric side, are good ways of talking about the broader frames of reference of the class; in the post modern notion of coherence of the class. I am trying to get the notion of patterns in here as it is important, and think that it fits well as a heuristic on the more physical end of the hermeneutic.

Conservatives and right-wingers have not done patterns well; while Liberals are typically pointing to the exceptions as the important thing. I think of a man who cited the example of a questionnaire of five Russian men. They were asked if they preferred White or Black women. 4 of them said they preferred White. One said he preferred mulatto, even more than White, but did not approve of interracial couples. The man chuckled and said, where did he think mulattoes were supposed to come from? For him, this would seem to be a winning argument – paying attention to the exception and all the while ignoring the four other Russian men who said that they prefer White women. The pattern is more the issue.

Now then, we have modernist, feminist women seeking individuation and Actualization, expressing the “high grumbles”, as Maslow described it, of unfulfilled Self Actualization; at the same time, we have modernist males, Hippies, expressing “low grumbles”, a need for the basics on the Hierarchy of Needs, not to be considered so valueless as to be sent to die in Viet Nam – to Be, as I would call this level – but who knew and who hears to this day about these incommensurate gender agendas? The high grumbles of women look conceited in comparison to the low grumbles of men; perhaps they may have seemed ‘boring’ – even if those needs were more fundamental and more in turn. The conceitedness of having their basic needs called boring by women through their high grumbles must have driven more than a few men over the edge.

To make matters worse, the feminist critique, based on the paradigm of Maslow, was only looking at White men who were on top and was only treating them as if they were there as a result of a Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment of preceding, lower levels. In truth, a number of White men were on top as a result of a Freudian, rather a Nietzschean, sublimation of deprivation on lower levels. Their low grumbles were being dismissed. This made, makes criticizing White males at the top perverse at times, as they may have gotten there precisely as they were compelled by hardship and now they were being ridiculed for succeeding despite that. So, sometimes he is being punished on top of deprivation and sacrifice as if he’d gotten there by dint of oppressive advantage. More, it was often the case that men were on top simply because they were good, having been tested stringently on basic levels. Finally, there was the compensatory gesture of tradition, placing men in that role on top to balance off the sacrifices expected on basic levels, having to go to war and so on.

As we’ve said, de Beauvoir was only looking at and being critical of the lucky men who were at the top; having nothing to say about the legions of men who had just been slaughtered in World Wars one and two.

Nevertheless, you weren’t hearing about that from feminists within the Maslowian paradigm. Perhaps we were to feel more sorry for them for supposedly not making equal pay while men went off to Viet Nam to die. Or because they were subject to double standards on sex (as if the double standard did not have some fairness to balance women’s advantage in that realm off… as a woman can be a real bully in the realm of sex; similar as we have double standards regarding physical force so that men cannot bully women physically); but the focus was their being denied by the glass ceiling, the top of the hierarchy, self actualization. Nothing about the fact that men were denied the bottom and being deprived of the basics on the hierarchy, had been through tradition, with brutal rights of passage…and critically, nothing about how women occupied, were normally granted the basics and middle of the hierarchy, safety and security – and what I will call Selfhood, the acceptance as good enough, one’s engagement in orienting, stabilizing, normal routines – crucial values in life.

Now we know the traditional male agenda, of individual achievement and actualization; and the modernist feminist mirroring of those same goals by Friedan, but the neo traditional female agenda is a bit lesser known as it functions here, in Post Modernity

The neo-traditional female perspective did not aspire to the same things as men, but rather wanted her differences recognized and respected. Carol Gilligan, the next key figure in this four-way system of gender, emerged as the exemplar of the Neo Traditional female perspective with her book, In A Different Voice, 1982. Interestingly, she also took one line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure. I discovered this; and it was confirmed as true by a colleague of hers at Harvard.

de Beauvoir on Page 681 rejects what she calls male morality: de Beauvoir says “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.” In In A Different Voice, Gilligan would develop this into a notion of female morality that would bring into full circle the intersection of gender relations and individualism.

Though she set out, and did destroy Lawrence Kohlberg’s rendition of gender differences in morals, more deeply, what is being called male morality would seem to be characterized by Kant, more or less. On the other hand, Gilligan proposed that women have different moral concerns from men. Characteristically, male morality would not steal, was concerned for pure rights and justice. Female morality would steal medicine for a sick baby, etc. Female morality was more characterized by care and webs of relationship. She cited examples of how men and women responded differently to photos: shown a photo of a middle aged White man sitting alone at his desk, women were afraid, men were not; shown and woman and a man about to join hands in mid air of the flying trapeze act – women were not afraid, men were. Men, she submitted, were afraid when people were coming together while women were more afraid by people going apart.

With Gilligan we’ve come to a complete enough heuristic of gender relations: Neo Traditional men and Modernist women after Actualization; Hippies, being reversing Modernist men and Neo Traditional women seeking basic stability on the hierarchy of needs.

One of the beauties of a quaternary system is that it is too complicated in its interfaces to turn into runaway categories yet, simple enough to serve as a useful guideline.

So, we can pretty well understand these incommensurate gender agendas and mange them fairly perhaps if we can re-instantiate the full White class bounds. It would seem that we could afford female individual actualization if they are challenged and tested more on basic levels so that they are not so liberal when they reach positions of actualization, respecting the sacrifices and hardships that have gone into the full White Class and its bounds over the millennia, not giving things away too easily, not taking for granted battle and competition, after which they had to merely give sex to the winner, vanquished be damned, their ass not having been on the line. Conversely, it would seem that men ought to be granted a little more ease of Being, so that they are not so crazy as they strive after actualization – as Bateson described, “the ignominious bullying of Naven Ritual Rights of passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” As for the neo traditionalists, they, as post modernists, may participate in traditional gender roles without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity as they knowingly and by choice participate in reconstructing these practices and have the ability and choice for the modernist alternative should they wish.

Hence, this four way system in the post modern is a way to accommodate modernist and traditional gender needs both without necessary losses to either.

This is fairly theoretical, and maybe neither feminist nor traditional women will ever be fair and will only want hypergamy, the males on top – but while women in the heterogeneous society of America seem highly inclined to tall men, for example, I have seen women regularly taking men who are not tall in a homogeneous White society – perhaps that is an example that fairness is more possible in a homogeneous society.…in theory, things could be worked out fairly, should be…I think can be..but even if women are not so cooperative in letting men be, it is good for men to know, to have the raised consciousness, so to speak, that that is something that they need, and that it is right, non-trivial, and fair..

What could be more painful than having this Cartesian division from the women we are co evolved with through millennia? We need a new paradigmatic understanding of gender relations since a mess has been made of them – particularly exacerbated with the wreckage of White class bounds

Thus, I would like to propose a post modern alternative to the lineal, maximizing, quantifying, modernist hierarchy of motives to Actualiazation – that is, an optimal management of Being, Selfhood and Socialization are necessary to Actualization, from which men will not back down and to which the Actualized, when they are Actualized, are indebted, if they are honest.

While it may be charged that I am requiring that men be wimps, the answer is no. Fight or tactical flight (or stealthy infiltration) for Whites is the essence of good will. That is what determines intrinsic value, and I juxtapose it to right wing elitism. In line with Kant, if a person has a high i.q., wealth and beauty, but betrays Whites, these qualities only make them worse. If they are used on behalf of Whites, fine, wonderful, nobody should limit their horizons in any significant way. However, it is fight or tactical flight (or stealthy infiltration) on behalf of Whites, a horizontal thing, which establishes good will to the White Class.

Feminism is Cartesian. A disruption of the White Class that is an organic, ecological pattern, a means of accountability. The Genders are co-evolved. Co-evolution is a strictly non-Cartesian notion.

In sage contrast to de Beauvoir and Friedan’s modernist flouting of Aristotle’s recommendation of quest for the optimal, as opposed to the maximal, we need to get back to an optimal management of gender relations and individualism if we are to manage the White class properly, between the over compensating and reversing modernists men and women and neo traditionalist men and women; but first of all, it requires a return to the legitimacy of the White class, so that opportunistic exploitation of outsiders do not truncate the process. Note that it is possible to be an overcompensating modernist, in pursuit of actualization – Bill Clinton was a good example; actualization is not only the province of the a neo traditionalist male; but I don’t want to confuse the matter – overcompensation and reversal is not my idea anyway – but does wonderfully relate to the modernist paradox. It was a modernist requirement to be different – as opposed to being a participatory, conforming traditionalist. And, it resulted in a paradox – be different so you can fit in. The Hippies were very susceptible to this…being different was very important to them, part of the destruction of their movement.

Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization

In order to get some control of the runaway effects of modernity’s and Jewish breaking down of our class bounds, as I noted last time, increasing the one up position of young females and their incitement, making competition toxic as opportunist outsiders truncate the developmental processes within the class; I have proposed looking at the hierarchy of needs in a new way and taking needs and motives out of hierarchy and into optimal management of needs between White individuals and the genders.

Now, I am proposing these four aspects of individualism as guidelines to the essential needs of White folks in optimal management. Being, Selfhood, Socialization, Self Actualization.

Socialization: As a social constructionist – and I hasten to note that nothing I’ve heard causes me the least concern that social constructionism is insufficient, twin studies, Salutrean man, you name it – when discussing a management of individual and gender needs, Socialization is the only real feature of the four aspects I propose. Nothing and no individual exists in isolation, outside of interaction, relations; and how facts count must be negotiated with others. When we are talking about Socialization, we are of course talking about reconstruction of the White Class in ecological relation to our habitats. This is a much more severe and strict a notion of classification than is comported in the ad hoc empirical idea of freedom of association, or even freedom from association. We are assuming that patterns of DNA are deep and complex, their value not always available to casual observation. Hence, we are suspect of eugenics, as being superficial, figuring that is going to happen on some level anyway…Fight or tactical flight (which would include stealthy infiltration) is the measure of good will… As we have said, those less great or impaired for whatever reason, the old, may make better fighters as thy have less to lose. Socialization for us, good will for us, is fight or flight on behalf of Whites – without that, all other attributes, intelligence, wealth, beauty, strength, power, can only make a White person a worse traitor.

The marginals indeed, would often be inclined to maintain the system as they are more dependent upon the class than are the alphas, and more in keeping with environmental variables, perhaps less able to over-graze..of course they can be traitors and over grazers too..as can the narrow minded alphas. But let us understand that in negotiating a balance, there is going to be a moral order, whether we organize it or let it happen wily-nilly – there will always be things that we can, cannot or might do in social relations. There has never been anarchy. Thus, we ought to do it consciously; and balance things consciously rather than merely having nature balance things off through its catastrophe. We are talking about an optimal balance of these four aspects of individualism and gender within the socialization of the White Class

At any rate, socialization, in seeing the systemic interrelatedness, ecology and accountability to the class, allows for the qualitative and full processual development of various members of the class at various stages in the developmental process as they meander and occupy their niche functions; life, especially within the class, is more a matter of cooperation than competition. Humans are mammals, they care about relationships, I don’t care what the movie the Matrix says in its Jewish agenda to make that Aristotlean notion seem backward, evil, nerdy and White. There has never been an anarchy and never will be – there will always be some things you can, cannot or might do. Now to the other levels of White Socialization -

Being is the most fundamental level of the life process, the basic level of the hierarchy, so to speak. Being biological, people are dependent upon optimality, not maximizations; being is a deliberate turning back from the toxicities of quantification that are inherent in the Maslowian paradigm. It is characterized by a valuation of biological processes as in Søren Kierkegaard’s claim that “Sleeping is the highest genius”; as in Bateson’s observation that “Naven Ritual Rights of Passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” As where Burke says, “The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” It is a notion of wanting to be left alone, not exploited…let me be! As Heidegger says, being is a verb, therefore not entirely passive, rather it lends motives to the creation of cultural boundaries.. ..along with the non-Cartesian “there being”, finding one’s self “out there”, it is like poesis, a slow, qualitative meandering, setting out what is before and after optimal rumination, taking to heart what is essential, giving thanks. Kenneth Burke has another good one here – “rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is emptying.” Being also implies that aspect of taking for granted, not being able to investigate everything we must take some things for granted, the borders of being, of our White Class…to be left alone…Again, Being requires a notion of sex as sacrament – institutionalization of voluntary enclaves for those committed to a single sex partner for life – without that option in life, choice and being are greatly reduced. This will provide a sacral aspect of our defense against Islam, Judaism and even Scientism and Christianity. Being as tactical retreat necessary for White recovery and revival.

We want to move toward outer-space, but we need not reach there this instant – we move there deliberately, at an optimal pace. Having done something and lived our lives, it will always be, even if an asteroid hits the earth, even if a super volcano or man made cataclysm destroys everything.

Now, being, selfhood and socialization are proposed as hedges against going crazy, but I want to make a distinction here – fighting on behalf of Whites in an effective way is not crazy – for us, that is a part of socialization

Selfhood is perhaps an even more interesting aspect: it works well with Habermas’s suggestion that unless we are able to see our subjective interests in a project we will not learn. Thus, I must recommend that White advocates find their subjective reward in pursuing not only the fourteen words but in their every day routines and work. I put this as the next level, rather aspect of Actualization, abandoning the hierarchical paradigm in favor of an optimal, processual and reconstructing one…Selfhood would contain those attributes that I’d described in Autobiography – Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant – but not in unusual ways; on the contrary, by practicing reliable and every day routines, chores and work. People need routines to be happy and to make sense, patterns to gauge differences and that which is required next. How are we going to restore the valor and the esteem of this “blue collar” category? I have a suggestion – by imbuing it with a notion of the sacral. It works well with the sacral anyway, because the sacred is that which reconstructs in reverence the most essential episodes of our life and social functions. In this sense, we are placing it beyond, esteeming it beyond elitist values and the misplaced reverence for their potential exploitations [You can extol the virtues of Henry Ford’s assembly line, or you can look at New Jersey, ribboned with dirty highways going everywhere and nowhere because their destined point has been paved over]. The old craftsman’s guilds would seem to be a kind of sacral view of routine practice. This is something of a challenge, however, as Selfhood is not very esteemed in the west (perhaps for the paranoia of there being no White class boundaries). However, the Being of White Class boundaries and Sacralization of routine might go a long way toward curing the modernist pardox of “be different so you can fit in”

It is probably one of the most important tasks here to be critical of Self Actualization. My attention was focused on the hazard as relatively little attention has been paid to the dark side of self actualization. It got me to reflecting, not only on the disappointment and the narrow kind of hedonism that this quest might be prone to…but even worse, to reflexive reversal into aberration through the over stress of feeling obligated and toxically compelled to achievement …that is part of what makes a lot of men and probably women too, go crazy and do crazy things for sure. More, Jews, Black athletes and musicians are not good role models for Whites with their incommensurate ways. A White may betray Whites because he or she wants to be a hero and distinguish them self from the quote, lower levels – upon which actualization must depend anyway, aspects which should be accorded commensurate respect. Again, I am not proposing to do away with actualization, just looking to avert runaway and catastrophic reflexive effect, to place it within optimal systemic management of the temporal.

* If I may add a controversial suggestion: One of the things that I am most proud of from last time is the assertion that miscegenating White women are equivalent to men what rapists are for women. There may be a natural inclination to rape among some men, just as there may be a natural inclination to miscegenation among some women, but we need not accept it as necessary and good within the bounds of a nation. This is one of the advantages to social constructionism – we do not have to accept it as a merely natural cause and effect (as we do not, rape, for example), but can defer some to social evaluation. They are not only destroying 40,000 years of careful evolution, but they are putting us all at risk to degradation of our habitats, exploitation and violence.

The Jews may not be entirely responsible for miscegenation, although they have a large influence for sure – but they are certainly, largely responsible for preventing White men from doing anything about it. Though rape is not necessarily, literally a violent crime, it is treated as such; and it certainly is right to classify it as such, to consider it a very serious offense. The same could be true with miscegenation.

There might be a wish in some men to have women as they would, even 9 year old girls and so on – but it has been mandated against by social decree, by consensus. So it could be with miscegenation – there is no absolute excuse for women to do this.

In Conclusion:

Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudice. It is hurting and it is killing people. It is defined as a prohibition of classifying peoples and discriminating against them as such. It is not innocent; it is hurting people through the prohibition of classificatory boundaries of people; disabling the means of protection and accountability for those marginalized within the group systemic process; those, for whatever reason, not on top of the game at a moment within the systemically related pattern of the class – thus abetting their exploitation and destruction by opportunistic outsiders.

The Basque philosopher Unomuno said, in close approximation, that “one must have a vision of perfection”- for us a vision of our White Class perfectly sovereign – “and with that, the vicissitudes of chance and change are as waves crashing harmlessly upon the rocks” – of our White Class.

Separatism is a first step, separatism is the ultimate aim and separatism is always possible.

I would like to note a few things that I took for granted while originally writing this piece – first, I take for granted private property – although there should be plenty of public property too, of course; secondly, I do not appreciate effeminate men; but rather am advising some balance, as over the top masculine men are a real pain, and can be beyond stupid, downright cataclysmic – Blacks, for example, are characteristically too masculine. More, none of what I say is contradictory to nationalism and regionalism. It works fine with coordinated White separatisms – a plurality of White ethnostates.

1. Connection of Being to sex as sacrament – voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls – the idea being that freedom of choice is preserved with that option, no matter how few choose it.

This, along with the 14 Words, can provide a sacral aspect of our defense against Islam, Judaism and even Scientism (viz., bad/misapplied science)

There is no such thing as a spontaneous uprising. In fact, such a thing is generally impossible. In today’s political world, political movements must be well organized and financed in order to function. Demonstrations, campaigns, media blitzes, events, rallies, communication, funding and all the other elements of serious reform movements take time and much money to put together. These require faxes, mobile phones, computer networks, elite support, and dozens of other important and expensive variables rarely considered by the Western press in dealing with “spontaneous” uprisings. None of this can happen without organization and planning.

The “Russian” revolution was not spontaneous; neither was the French, British or American. All were based on money, power, competent leadership, foreign funding, crucial elite support, a coherent agenda, and, as always, abstract and vague sloganeering that could be interpreted in any number of ways. They, as well, also all claimed to be speaking for “the people.” Syria is no exception.

The facts are very clear. Israel and the United States are the only elements that stand to gain from the overthrow of the social nationalist government in Syria. Syria is a country that was well on her way to economic development and regional significance out of proportion to her size. A strong government is always necessary to keep all Arab, Islamic and Christian factions apart. Lebanon and Iraq are clear examples of this.

The script is all too familiar: a “despotic” government (almost always an enemy of Israel and liberalism), finally gets its “comeuppance” from “oppressed and heroic” people who just want “democracy” or some other vague demand. The American media have maintained the same script from Belarus to Egypt; from El Salvador to China; from Russia to East Timor. Nothing has changed.

The Islamic Committee in Russia, as well as the Russian government, has blamed the violence in Syria on Israel and the U.S., two countries seeking to control the world’s resources and manipulate its politics. The Islamic banking movement now has assets of over $1 trillion. All the states that have been the victims of “spontaneous revolution” are supporters of this new banking movement, one independent of both the European and Jewish banking cartels.

All the “peaceful demonstrations” reported by the biased Western media have been infiltrated with terror cells of all backgrounds that have fired at police. Only then was the army called out. Here are the facts:

There is nothing going on in Syria or in its government that is not daily fare in Israel and the occupied territories.

The Ba’ath party has engaged in substantial economic and political reforms for about a decade. These include freeing prices and stabilizing the currency. Bureaucratic and corporate level reforms have been legislated since the late 1980s. None of these are mentioned in the Western media.

The banking sector has been streamlined and so has the tax system. In fact, the IMF has praised Syria for her reforms since 2000, if not before.

The Ba’ath party government since the late 1970s has engaged in land reform that has given land to the peasants who till it. As a result, the farming class is strongly behind the Ba’ath movement.

The Syrian GDP since 2000 has more than doubled in size under the Ba’ath party.

The highest 10 percent of the Syrian population control only 28 percent of the wealth. In the United States, the top 10 percent control about 71 percent of the wealth. The Syrian system has worked—it has created strong growth plus a great degree of equality. The American system has not worked.

The state bank is actually owned by the state, which means that the Syrian pound is relatively immune to Western manipulation.

The U.S., in its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, banned any and all political parties that were anti-Western.

The Ba’ath government since 2000 has spent billions to repair the infrastructure, services and security in the cities.

Pro-government rallies far surpass the numbers of of the anti-government ones, both in the number of participants as well as their geographic dispersion, including the large Syrian community in Lebanon.

Syrian life expectancy is about 74, which is a first-world figure.

Syrian literacy stands at about 90 percent.

According to some figures, Syria was set to grow at about 10 percent a year prior to the violence.

The Syrian government has consistently asked the opposition groups to meet for talks. They have all refused.

Assad promised to lift all emergency laws, but as soon as the announcements had been made, more violence was imposed on the country. In other words, someone seems to need this “crackdown” to continue.

Russian FSB units, long active in Syria, reject the idea that these armed groups are anything other than Israeli-armed terror cells that represent no one but themselves and their sponsors.

Syrian farmers bringing food to the major cities have reported being fired upon by anti-government terror units.

Foreign media are not permitted into Syria. Thus, all Western reporting on the country is highly suspect, since none of it can be verified.

Many Western media “reports” allegedly coming out of Syria use pseudonyms, hence conveniently making it impossible to trace the source of any information.

No one can deny that the Ba’ath party has been a success in Syria. In a few years, the Ba’ath party took this impoverished, former colony of France and turned it into a regional power both in a military and an economic sense. Yet, this is precisely the problem. The Ba’ath party under Saddam in Iraq and under the Assads in Syria were on the cusp of becoming important, first-world powers. It was right around this time that they were branded as “evil” states in need of sanctions. Iraq, Iran and Syria have been growing at a great pace not just in terms of economics, but education, literacy, heath care, high-technology, infrastructure, banking, military and foreign affairs. Israel was not going to sit by and let its three greatest enemies become Middle Eastern versions of South Korea.

Some of the most damning indictments of the American academic and journalistic elites have come from Belgian professor Pierre Piccinin of the European School of Brussels. He has made himself clear, to the detriment of his own career, that the Western media “lack professional integrity” in their present coverage of the violence in Syria.

For example, Piccinin holds the Western media responsible for taking close-up shots of small protests and claiming that these represent “millions” of anti-government activists. He was at the anti-government demonstration in Hama, with, in his estimation, numbered about 15,000 people. The Western press without exception reported the numbers to be over 500,000 and a “broad cross section” of the Syrian population.

Former British Member of Parliament George Galloway was reported as saying that the “only reason” Syria is under foreign attack is that they “have supported the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance and rejected any surrender to Israel.” The Minister of State in Lebanon, Ali Quansu, said the same.

Here is just one example, from the BBC, of the biased reporting of the West in dealing with the Syrian protests. The title of the piece is “Syria’s Spontaneously Organized Protests.” The title itself is proof of the laughable bias of the BBC here, a long opponent of Syrian anti-Zionism. The very fact that the BBC needs to title the piece this way strongly suggests they are well aware that the truth is precisely the opposite. It’s like telling everyone how much you love your wife as you are cheating on her. The author of the piece is based in Beruit, and hence, is relatively far from the action. She writes:

Just like the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, the protests in Syria are a grassroots movement, with no real leaders but with a number of prominent activists who keep things going.

How many errors and verbal cues can you find in this paragraph? The use of the term “revolution” is strange, since apparently, these are just “grassroots” people who just want “democracy.” Revolution implies radicalism. If there are no leaders, then there is no articulated agenda, and hence, no way to figure out if they are “revolutionary” or not. How can something be spontaneous and organized at the same time? There is no proof—and none is offered—that this is just a “grassroots movement.” The use of this cliché, among many others, suggests a script rather than an actual report. What does “no real leaders” mean? Who is articulating demands, then? Who are these “prominent activists?”

One of these “prominent activists” who has been feeding information to the Western media is the “dissident” Ammar Abdulhami of Silver Spring, Maryland. Among other things, he has worked at the “Saban Center for Middle East Policy” at the Brookings Institution as a “research scholar.” Haim Saban, of course, is the Jewish media mogul who created this “Institute.” He is a right-wing Zionist worth about $4 billion. He controls most cartoon TV for kids in America. The “Institute” was headed by AIPAC head Martin Indyk for a time. Indyk was also U.S. ambassador to Israel as well, where he was stripped of his security clearance for leaking sensitive documents to the Zionist state. Predictably, it was restored to him by the Jewish Zionist Madeline Albright.

In addition, Abdulhami was instrumental in founding HAMSA, a left-leaning group which is identical to the American Islamic Congress (even their websites are the same). The members of the board of the AIC are very instructive. One is Hillel Fradkin, the Jewish head of the “Center for Islam” at the Hudson Institute. Another is Harriet Fulbright of the infamous “Fulbright Center” from whence come the money for the Fulbright Scholarships. Sa’ad Eddin Ibrahim worked for the Woodrow Wilson Institute. Not surprisingly, this group also as a branch in Cairo. The point is that this set of “prominent activists,” no different from Amnesty International or dozens of other “human rights” groups, turns out to be a mere front for the rich, well-connected, suburban, liberal SUV set.

Even more chilling is that this “dissident” group has partnered with the International Relief and Development Agency, financed by U.S. taxpayers, to, in their words, “service provider training, media, advocacy, and mobile unit service delivery, and will be implemented with and through local partners such as The American Islamic Congress, Erbil Emergency Hospital and Burn Unit, Childhood Care and Sponsorship Organization, Psycho-Social, Education, Treatment and Consulting Center, Kurdistan Institute for Political Issues, and Heartland.”

In one of the more outrageous acts of the concerted Western press, major media sources claimed that physician Dr. Golan al Rifaei was imprisoned by Syrian security forces. The corporate funded “human rights” organizations such as Amnesty International mobilized their university supporters to demand his release. They created expensive dinner parties, hit up the Ford Foundation for money and set up rallies on college campuses to agitate for his release. He was used as a symbol for the “tyranny” of the Syrian government. Unfortunately for these groups, the doctor had been living in Russia since 2006, and remains a supporter of the government. They simply chose his name, as if out of a hat, and invented a story about him. This, unfortunately, is not atypical of the media in this regard.

The spectacle of endless, a-critical and laudatory reporting on the “lesbian girl” in Syria was both comical and saddening. In hopes of mobilizing the corporate-financed, multibillion homosexual movement in America and Europe in favor of intervention in Syria, the American media helped create and invent the “Gay Girl in Damascus,” which turned out to be an American man, Thomas McMaster. McMaster spun a tale about being kidnapped by the tyrannical Syrian government and tortured because of “her lesbianism.” It was widely reported, used as an example of “Ba’ath tyranny,” and, again, turned out to be a crude fake.

On May 29 of 2011, The Russia Times wrote this about Syria:

And yet against this supposedly inauspicious backdrop, one can walk alone in Damascus at any time, day or night. There is no overt military or police presence on the streets. Not long ago, Syria was one of the safest countries in the world. No checkpoints on the roads, patrols, road-side inspections or other signs of a militarized society. Even now, Syria does not look much like the “bloody dictatorship” described by the foreign media.

The Times also makes clear that, in unbiased media reports from the area, the disturbances are exclusively coming from one group in the country, the radically Islamic Salafi groups. Salafi movements are strong in the Gaza Strip, and have received money from the IDF because they are seen as a counterweight to Hamas and—and as a result—both Iranian and Syrian influence in the area. These armed gunmen are the main focus of the “anti-government” movement in Syria.

In fact, the pro-Syrian Hamas broke up some Salafi demonstrations in and around Israeli settlements in Gaza. Mossad is very active in using the Salafi and sympathetic Brotherhood members to destabilize all the Islamic and secular governments in the area. Mossad support for Islamic radicals used for destabilization purposes, needless to say, is nowhere to be found in the Western press.

Ilan Chaim Grapel, an American Jew in the pay of the Mossad, goes by the name of “Illanhu Akbar,” and speaks fluent Arabic. He was a speaker in several Egyptian mosques prior to the eruption of the violence in that country. Several Arab media outlets had this to say:

Grapel also gave a speech at the Al-Azhar mosque in Egypt, in which he demanded that the Egyptian worshipers should target the military and to resist against them at Al-Tahrir Square and generally incited the audience to engage in violence. He gave other “Islamic” speeches in the Hussein area and at Tahrir Square and in front of Maspero. He recorded the events, his speeches and the audience in video and he even managed to recruit some young people and convince them to attack the armed forces who were at al-Tahrir Square securing the demonstrators.

Left-wing journalist Joyce Chediac, no friend of the Ba’ath Party, wrote this in May of 2011:

The Syrian government-run media is not saying much, while the Western corporate media as well as Al Jazeera have been accused of exaggerating both the protests and the Syrian government repression. Russia Today on April 30 quotes a travel agent living in Syria who says pro-Assad rallies were called “anti-Assad” by Al Jazeera; anti-government protests reported by Al Jazeera and Reuters did not take place; and protest footage from other countries has been attributed to Syria.

While front-page articles give the impression that most of Syria has taken to the streets against Assad, most establishment Middle East pundits admit that the Syrian government, at this point, is supported by most Syrians.

Press TV, a multilingual news source specializing in the Middle East, writes in June of 2011:

Hundreds of Syrian civilians have also crossed the northern border into Turkey after the Turkish government announced that its doors are open to those seeking refuge.

The developments come as the US Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta recently visited the border between Syria and Turkey in a secret visit to Turkey. The United States and some regional countries support civil war in Syria.

Syrian army units on Monday restored security and tranquility to the city of Jisr al-Shaghour after clearing it from the armed groups that terrorized locals, attacked public and private properties, and wrought havoc in the city.

In the latest attempts, Washington and Tel Aviv are hatching plots to reignite the flames of unrest in Syria through smuggling weapons into the Arab country via the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

A young doctoral student in Middle Eastern studies, Vanessa Newby, spoke of her visit to Damascus as the riots began:

As I walked the streets of the city, I got the sense that demonstrators were looking for a fight. There was more than a whiff of aggression in the way they yelled out to me and in their demeanour. They were predominantly young men. It was discomfiting and I was glad to return to my home and get off the streets.

The media until recently, attributed the lack of revolutionary spirit in Syria to the popularity of the President. The large pro-government protests that I witnessed demonstrated to me that, in some parts of the country, this is true. The President has continued to resist US efforts to encourage him to abandon Syria’s links to Hizbollah and Hamas and he refuses to make peace with Israel over the Golan Heights. This certainly makes him popular with some locals.

The simple fact is that these “revolutions” have been financed by the same people. Both the U.S. government through its “Institute for Peace,” as well as billionaire investors, fronted by such groups as the Albert Einstein Foundation, the Ford Foundation and “Humanity in Action” have all been operating in Syria, Egypt and Tunisia for many years. The “International Crisis Group” and various fronts created by George Soros have also been involved with training cadres for rebellion in countries considered inconvenient by the U.S. Government and global capitalism.

Jafaria News, a pro-Islamic news source, writes:

At the outset, the White House and the Tel Aviv regime provoked anti-government protests in Syria’s southern city of Daraa near the border with Jordan.

There is now clear evidence that weapons, cell phones and terrorists from Jordan were transferred into the city to further complicate the situation on the ground, analysts say.

The Syrian army began withdrawing its forces from Daraa in early May after arresting scores of heavily-armed people and confiscating large amounts of sophisticated weapons and ammunition.

The US and Israel then sparked revolts in the cities of Baniyas, located on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, and Talkalakh near the Lebanese border.

Outfitted with one of the strongest militaries in the region, armed rebellion against the Syrian government makes no sense, unless there are mercenaries, trained in advanced weaponry, at work in Syria.

Nothing makes sense, as always, about the Regime’s reporting on the Syrian riots. The Syrian economy has, by both regional and global standards, has been doing well and was predicted by the IMF to do better in coming years. The new president Bashir al-Assad came into office promising all manner of reforms, and was always considered, by the same Western press now condemning him, as a reformer. The Ba’ath party’s “no surrender” to Israel made it perennially popular. Bashir has repaired all ties with Russia, bringing in much Russian investment, money and technical experts in the high-tech sector.

Like it or not, slogans about “democracy” in Syria make about as much sense as democracy in Iraq. These countries are deeply divided by race, religion and ethnicity. In all likelihood, political parties, as in Iraq, Afghanistan or Bosnia, will develop along these lines. If so, Israel, Turkey, the U.S., Georgia and numerous other pro-Western states have an interest in arming all of them, so as to turn Israel’s enemy #1 into another Lebanon.

Note: This article was originally published in the American Journal of Russian and Slavic Studies in 2007.

The increasing violence and arrogance of the Regime is directly correlated to its insecurity. For all its ranting about its successes and, of course, its “inevitability,” the regime is facing some very difficult times. Overwhelming debt, a lost war in Iraq, outsourcing of some of its more satisfying jobs, alienation of rural areas, increasing fuel prices, and substantial foreign competition from the developing India-China-Russia axis, the Regime, like a spoiled child, lashes out in hatred.

The latest attack comes from a half-witted Congressman who I had not heard of until now, The Hon. John Shimkus (R-IL). He has come to my attention due to an outburst on the floor of the House, condemning Belarus. Reading from a script, he condemned Belarus for “violating democracy,” etc. etc.; everyone knows the drill. Shimkus also sits on something called the Congressional Baltic Caucus, something else I had not known of until now. As it turns out, Shimkus has made Belarus a major part of his legislative agenda, sponsoring and co-sponsoring numerous “resolutions” condemning Belarus for some “crime” or other. (See here for a few speeches).

Here are a few excerpts from some of his press releases over the last few years:

“Unfortunately, just today we have received word of potential harassment of opposition activists by the government, For the people of Belarus, I pray for the success of the ‘denim revolution.’ (2006)”

And this from a man who cheered the passage of the Patriot act and wishes to make it stronger.

Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois-19) introduced House Resolution 673 “expressing support for the efforts of the people of the Republic of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and urging the Government of Belarus to conduct a free and fair presidential election on March 19, 2006.

Shimkus is a very good case study of legislative corruption. Why would an obscure congressman worry so much about a country the size of Kansas, a country that, in no conceivable respect, poses a threat to the U.S? Let’s take a look.

Shimkus is supported by a few telling organizations, led by Abbott Laboratories, the drug giant based in Illinois, and nearly every other major drug manufacturer. Also controlling his candidacy are the following corporations, the list itself is telling, and is provided by the disclosures of his campaign filed at the Federal Election Commission.

Shimkus and the neo-con republicans in general are financed by: Amazon.com, The American Bankers Association American, Express, Sugarbeet Growers, Time Warner, ADM, AT&T (huge contributions under various names), Bank of America, Boeing, Cargill, Citigroup, ConAgra, Chrysler, DTE, Energy Edison, Northrop Grumman, Enron, Exxon-Mobil (huge donations), a small army of sugar corporations another huge set of donations from coal interests in America.

Proving that congressmen are financed by international corporations for the creation of a New Global Order is easy. Showing specific patterns–that is, connecting campaign donations to actual voting and speechmaking behavior–is another matter. The above list, however, is fairly self-explanatory, and is just a small sampling of corporate America that controls this hapless front man. The above companies, however, have provided for the majority of Shimkus’ funds, and the companies and fronts listed above have given very large donations individually.

The above list of corporate interest is telling also in that most of them are in direct economic competition with Russian interests. The top-heavy list of energy suppliers is telling enough, and the sugar interests are certainly curious, but rather obvious in that Russia grows beets in large quantities, from which one can process sugar, one easily competitive with American interests in Hawaii and Florida. The rest have specific interests in penetrating and controlling the Russian market. Russia has a hardworking population of well educated people, and also has a strong scientific and technological bent. Therefore, it makes sense that many communications and tech outfits finance the Republicans. Grumman and Boeing are also significant in that they are in direct competition with the high tech sector in Russia, both military and civilian.

The point of this is not merely to show that Shimkus is indeed a front man, and that all politicians in liberal democracies are puppets, and not even that he is controlled by energy interests (which he clearly is). More importantly, it proves that, by and large, the opinions of the likes of Shimkus are not his own, but are fed to him by the large PR organizations connected with corporate finance that have a direct interest in Russian and Belarussian life. As of 2011, Shimkus is heading several energy related committees and movements on Capitol Hill such as the Coal Caucus.

But there is more. Right around the time Shimkus made his House speech on Belarus’ “crimes,” several international agencies released their data on Belarussian life in 2006. The timing here is unmistakable. Some figures:

Socio-economic development of Belarus in 2006 demonstrated positive dynamics on virtually all most important parameters, thus proving the effectiveness of the socio-economic model chosen by the leadership of Belarus.

In comparison with 2005:

Gross domestic product grew 9.9 percent in Belarus as against 2005, which, according to the United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects 2007 report, places Belarus among the most dynamically developing states of the world. In particular, in terms of GDP growth Belarus ranks 7th in the world (after Azerbaijan, Armenia, Latvia, Estonia, China and Kazakhstan).

Industrial production rose 11.3 percent. According to the Interstate Statistical Committee of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Belarus in terms of industrial production growth passed most of CIS states except Azerbaijan (36.6 percent).

Agricultural production rose 6.1 percent, which is much higher than the average level in CIS states (3 percent), and might have something to do with ADM and ConAgra heavily financing Shimkus and others who are anti-Belarus.

Consumer goods production increased by 10.5 percent.

The Embassy of Belarus in America writes: “Capital investments grew 31.4 percent. According to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investment Report 2006, as of the end of 2005 Belarus was 10th among 19 countries of the South-Eastern Europe and CIS in terms of the level of direct foreign investments, and 4th among CIS countries (after Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan). In the report, Belarus is placed in the category of countries with high potential for attracting direct foreign investments, leading over most of the countries of South-Eastern Europe and CIS.”

Here’s a major reason why the Regime hates Lukashenko: Foreign trade grew 28.7 percent, including the growth of exports by 23.5 percent, as well as foreign trade in services, which saw a growth of 15.5 percent. Positive balance in the trade of services exceeded $1 billion. In other words, the pious condemnations of Belarus are just that. It does not stop many European firms from doing business with one of the healthiest economies in the developing world.

Unemployment still holds at just over 1% according to the UN World Economic Situation and Prospects Report. According to the same agency, real income grew 17.3%. According to the World Economic Forum Report of 2006, Belarus has the lowest infant mortality rate in the CIS. According to the World Bank, Belarus has one of the best records in combating corporate corruption.

And this is just a smattering of the major achievements of the Belarussian nation and President Lukashenko, all cataloged by overwhelmingly hostile sources. Now, why would this be a problem for the likes of Shimkus?

First of all, Belarus is not part of the global trading system in any official capacity. The Regime has done all in its power to harm Belarus, from threats to attempted sanctions, to an endless propaganda barrage directed against her. Belarus continues, by any standard, to prosper. Secondly, Belarus shows the prosperity that can be gained through regional, rather than global cooperation (in this case, with Russia). Belarus has proven that it does not need the global system, as have Malaysia and Venezuela, both regular targets from Republicans in Congress.

Thirdly, Belarus has proven that a strong state, in the case of a small country besieged by the powerful West, can control corruption and provide basic services better than Western style systems. While Belarus has free elections and very diverse media, presidential powers are substantially strong, a strength born out of necessity, to prevent the financial and economic meltdown suffered by Russia during the reign of the recently deceased Yeltsin. Belarus has prevented Western economic penetration, IMF dictates and global economists from running the country, and as a result, she prospers. This, more than anything else, leads corporate America and their front men to lash out regularly at Belarus.

Addendum:

Since this article was published in 2007, the Congressman has lashed out against this writer, writing (or having someone else write) attacks on me anonymously. He has called me “evil,” among other things, clearly showing he still believes in moral absolutes for his suburban neo-con constituents. Clearly, Shimkus sees some of this information being used by his opponents.

But what is more significant is how Belarus has fared since the liberal Regime has officially gone bankrupt both literally and metaphorically since 2008. Since that time, economic growth in Belarus, according to the World Bank, has averaged about 8 percent. In 2010, Belarus saw her economy grow by about 6 percent, with industrial production going up almost 10 percent. Real incomes in the country, in this same time frame, have gone up about 7 percent. As of this writing in 2011, Belarus has roughly 1 percent unemployment, a high savings rate, the lowest infant mortality in the former CIS, high incomes and a large budget and trade surplus. The state has been heavily involved in promoting high-tech investment and development, and cheap fuel from Russia has permitted the economy to thrive under harsh conditions.

Belarus is a living example in how the neo-conservative/neo-liberal “Washington Consensus” has not only failed, but has made life miserable for millions of Americans and Europeans. Only those states who follow their own interests, control their own currency and have a large state that can target investment such as Belarus, China and Vietnam have been able to develop and thrive while the liberal west cannot pay its bills. Individually, the western financed “opposition” to President Lukashenko cannot poll over 5 or 6 percent. Together they poll about 20 percent, according to both western and Russian polling agencies.

While the U.S. Places sanctions on Belarus and all states that it cannot control, the popularity of Lukashenko and Putin continues to rise, averaging about 70 percent approval for both politicians. Nationalist economics is at the root of this popularity. Making matters worse for both the EU and America, Germany, needing cheap fuel, has made separate deals with both Minsk and Moscow independently of the European Union. As Germany is being forced to pay for elite bailouts throughout Europe, she is responding by going to the sources of economic growth in the East. There is little the EU can do in response.

At the same time, since Moscow and Minsk are tightly connected to the Chinese economy, Western sanctions and the mindless, suburban blowhards like Congressman Shimkus can have no effect. What is more significant is the means by which the U.S., the EU and the Soros empire will use to lash out their contempt of statist economies. Tunisia and Egypt are two clear examples. English language signs, “new media” organization, total neo-con/neo-lib agreement, media clichés about the protesters, and a total lack of any public ideology or agenda for the protesters are tell tale signs of Soros and/or CIA influence in that area. Riots in Thailand last year are another example. While the CIA tried to foment riots in Minsk during the presidential elections, the “opposition” garnered about 20 percent of the vote, consistent with foreign polls of popularity among Belarussian politicians. The West then responds to its humiliating defeat by compensating among North African states. While this occurs, Hezbollah reaches a majority in the Lebanese diet and China buys more dollars.

There is a clear connection between multi-polarity among great powers and the intensification of economic dependency. Competition for resources and markets coming from Russia, India, China, Thailand, Venezuela, Vietnam and other high performing states is forcing the US and its Congressional front men to regain colonial or neo-colonial control over third world nations to compensate. This is the formal cause for the riots in Egypt or Shimkus’ endless tirades about a tiny country he knows nothing about.

Matthew Raphael Johnson, Ph.D. is a former history professor, a professional author, a priest of the Russo-Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and a VoR radio host. His Web site is The Orthodox Nationalist. Email him at fr_raphael yahoo.com.

While a priest in the Soviet forced labor and death camps, Fr. Vasili Romanyuk, later to become Patriarch +Volodymyr of all Ukraine, wrote several epistles from prison. Within these, one can discern a very specific and well thought out social philosophy, albeit one contained within a very strict True Orthodox context. Within these letters and essays, the future Patriarch held that law and nationalism are necessary for an intelligent political life, that human rights are central to a moral political life, and even more, any contact with the Moscow Patriarch and the complacent and elitist World Council of Churches (WCC) is a betrayal of those suffering for the Orthodox faith in Ukraine and elsewhere in the Soviet Bloc. While this may be inconvenient for the Bound Brook Ukrainian ecumenists, the reality is that patriarch +Volodymyr was a witness and a sufferer for the True Orthodox vision–a vision that set itself against those semi-Orthodox bodies that have joined with the Moscow Patriarchate for the sake of worldly advancement and social prestige.

Ultimately, Fr. Vasili was sent to the GULAGs on four separate occasions that spanned the years 1949- 1959, and from 1972-1979, where he was finally released and escaped the USSR into Canada, where he became a monk, after the death of his wife, under Metropolitan +Mstyslav. Only when the USSR fell in Ukraine did +Mstyslav take his rightful place as Patriarch of an independent Ukraine, and now monk Volodymyr was made Metropolitan of Lv’iv and the heir apparent of +Mstyslav, who warned his synod against the machinations and corruption of metropolitan Filaret (some claim that Mstyslav had anathematized Filaret, but the latter’s great wealth and political connections made such an pronouncement of no effect ). He was never excommunicated by Mstyslav, as the absurd Wikipedia article on Volodymyr claims. Filaret was in the synod of Mstyslav as Volodymyr was, and hence, the Wikipedia claim is baseless and preposterous, as most Wiki claims are.

His two main essays, “Sons of Day and Sons of Night,” (1979) as well as “The Kingdom of God Within Us” (1979) are directed against the world Orthodox and their attachment to the fraudulent Moscow Patriarchate. For the then priest Vasili, the true Orthodox resisters “have no right to sleep because we are the light of the world.. . .one may be called righteous only if we are ready to lay down our life for our friends.” Of course, those who attached themselves to the MP were interested in saving their own skin. “Our Christian calling obligates us to categorically reject all the deeds of darkness, and enter into no compromises with the sons of night. . .” While the world Orthodox were comfortable, well ed, and complacent in their acceptance of the Moscow Patriarchate and the WCC who supported it, the future patriarch writes concerning the True Orthodox “There is no grumbling about their fate amongst them because they know whose sons they are, why they have been called into this world, and where they are going. . . no one has been given the right to be indifferent to the events of this world.” On the other hand, the world Orthodox have been led astray by “insidiousness, deceit, flattering words and the guise of ‘magnanimity,’” as the world persecutes the righteous. Even more, “The devil wants to legalize the interception of human souls for himself with the help of various secular laws that persuades Christians to agree with the legalization of lawlessness.”

But what remains steady in the patriarch’s words is that there can be no compromise here: “Let us not be diverted from our chosen path by any diabolical ‘peace’ proposals, because there can be nothing in common between darkness and light.” Clearly, this is not only directed against the left wing in western politics, but more importantly, the semi-Orthodox that have joined with Moscow and those others who have sought to compromise with anti-Christ rejecting their Christian calling for being comfortable in the mainstream of social life in the west: the same west that not only ignored the future patriarch’s many appeals, but continued to aid and trade with the Soviet bloc while the GULAG remained in motion. In an appeal to the world Orthodox to break with Moscow and the WCC, he writes “Therefore, what emerges fro the present sate of things is that the Christian community should not reconcile itself to the conditions which have come about in today’s world and should demand in those so-called ‘dialogues’ that the opposing side promptly change its attitude towards us!” That is, the suffering Orthodox in the catacombs. The WCC, needless to say, ignored Fr. Vasili’s appeals and continued to support the Moscow Patriarchate and its “world Orthodox” hangers on.

For Patriarch Volodymyr, the voice of Christ can be heard in the conscience of every Orthodox person. “It speaks to us constantly if we have not deadened it by our sins” he writes. For a man that spent a generation throughout the various GULAG camps in Russia and Ukraine, camps that the Moscow Patriarch denied even existed, he writes “It is namely our sins that prevent us from feeling the joy of the Kingdom of God already here on earth, and later become a hindrance to entering it, for according to the Word of God nothing impure will enter there.” This is an important theological point. The Kingdom of God and the transfiguration of nature and human relations has already been accomplished. Heaven exists on earth in the church in its fulness, but our sins keep us bound to the lower world of cause and effect, in short, the world of power and its relations. Unlike Catholicism, Protestantism and new Orthodoxy, heaven is merely a dimension of the created earth, bound together in lawfulness by the Logos, saved and transfigured by Christ, and it can be experienced here and now by the saints and great ascetics. It is not some far off world, not some “place up there” as the simple would have it, but within the church, within the ascetic struggle itself. Death is a simple transition to the possession of this kingdom with complete security, but a kingdom that can be accessed while still in the flesh. In other words, Christ has already accomplished this task of transfiguration, only humanity and its arrogance and pride has prevented itself from experiencing it. “Entire generations were lost in the murky thickets of centuries only because they believed not in God, but in corrupted human wisdom. And this is not all. Human wisdom inspired by a diabolical spirit, strives to somehow justify its abuse of people, embellishing it with great attributes and far fetched epithets in order to look enticing and pleasant to human hearing and sight because in this way it is easier to capture all kinds of credulous and naive people.”

For Fr. Vasili, the west was completely fooled by the leftist propaganda machine in and out of the USSR. Corrupted media, religious complacency and sheer ignorance and self-importance forbade western politicians and religious leaders to fully comprehend the Soviet menace. While the Nazis were condemned to the skies on a daily basis, being a Marxist was little less than chic in American universities. Marxist slogans without serious opposition were offered with a sneer from the overpaid academics in the modern west, comfortable with high salaries, tenure and little work to pontificate to their captive audiences in the classroom. Anti-communists were regularly denied tenure and driven out of universities on the charge of “anti-Semitism.” The west had, since World War I, followed the Marxists root and branch, offering the same promises, but under a system where the regime could be justified in periodic and tightly controlled elections. This the likes of Patriarch +Volodymyr and Solzhenitsyn knew very well. While “Holocaust survivors” became celebrities, GULAG inmates were forgotten, and their memory besmirched by huge American academic establishment who regularly considered the GULAG inmates “fascists” regardless. Even today, professional academic frauds have ignored the testimony of GULAG inmates among the expatriate Ukrainian and Russian exiles in America, while giving “Holocaust survivors” speaking fees of $100,000 and up. Had Solzhenitsyn not won the Nobel prize, he also would have gone down the Orwellian memory hole as well.

For Fr. Vasili in the GULAG, the Moscow Patriarchate was little more than a propaganda organization for the KGB. The fact that these men wore clerical dress and chanted the services meant nothing, none of that proved their Orthodoxy, only their usefulness. Today, the Ukrainians in Bound Brook, in full communion with Constantinople who never wavered in their support of the Moscow Patriarchate, would like to drop +Volodymyr down the memory hole, something that we cannot permit. For Fr. Vasili, the Moscow Patriarchate exists solely for the purposes of “self-liquidation,” in his words, a bureaucracy that exists to oversee the manipulation, alteration and eventual disintegration of religion in Russia and has no other purpose. Hence, the Moscow Patriarchate maintained close ties with the WCC to permit a further penetration of the propaganda to the “anti-communist” west. In fact, the WCC was a willing partner with the MP in flooding the west with false stories about “freedom of religion” in the Soviet Bloc. In fact, the future patriarch writes from prison, concerning the MP, “This church has no rights. It is unable to set in motion its own activity. Furthermore, it has been assigned the function of self-liquidation. . priests and active believers are submitted to various repressions while the hierarchy washes its hands of the matter. . .I have turned to the Moscow patriarchate several times, so that they could intervene in my defense, but on none of these occasions have I ever even heard a reply.” In dealing with the obliviousness of the corrupted west, he writes: “Brazenly and arrogantly the USSR persecutes believers while the Christian world not only remains silent, but signs various agreements with this country.” The phrase “Christian world” was uttered in sarcasm.

In mocking the western delegates at the 1975 WCC convention in Nairobi, Fr. Vasili writes: “. . .how the delegates of the west permitted themselves to be deceived and manipulated in everything! A visitation from the Lord! It cannot be called anything else. How benevolently and attentively they listen to the emissaries of falsehood and atheism cry out from the rostrums about the equal rights of believers and other citizens.” The “religious academics” gathered in Nairobi, with major foundation grants, to pontificate about the progressive nature of the USSR in order to satisfy their paymasters. These then went back to their universities and pompously pontificated about their sophistication and their world travels, as millions starved in the GULAG. As they piously prattled about ecumenism in their protected and tenured chairs, the true Christian world was liquidated. Those that spoke out were summarily called “fascists” and, even worse, “nationalists” by the apostles of openness and ecumenism.

The future Patriarch hence indicts the entire “world Orthodox” organization, the Phanar, Antioch, Alexandria and the OCA, as being part and parcel of the liquidation of the True Orthodox in Russia and Ukraine. Even worse, the flatulent, neo-Orthodox world of the OCA, themselves openly venerating KGB “Patriarch Nikodim” who created them, openly sided with the KGB hierarchy over the True Orthodox, the latter of which were anathematized as “schismatics” by the western “World Orthodox” organization and the WCC, of which the world Orthodox are merely a small branch office. These are the very same frauds: the wealthy Orthodox academics, millionaire bishops and worldly wise synods in “world Orthodoxy” who continue to call the underground Orthodox in Russia “schismatics” today, and even pronounce their mysteries graceless, while they stuff their faces at their parish picnics and vacation trips to the Antiochean Village. As they believe that the KGB Patriarchate who acquiesced to millions of Orthodox people being liquidated in the GULAG as “mainstream Orthodoxy,” they condemn the True Orthodox for their “lack of love.” The True Orthodox world does not receive grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.

For Patriarch Volodymyr, the only true virtue is in the acceptance of martyrdom: but the world of “mainline Orthodoxy” is the opposite of martyrdom: it is a compromise with the world for the sake of money and mainline prestige. The pseudo-bishops under the millionaire Philip Saliba meekly saw their sees taken away from them solely because Saliba controls millions of dollars who support their organizations and chancelleries, not to mention their medical benefits. The OCA has received millions in grants from the WCC and Archer Daniels Midland to finance their seminaries and “scholars.” But these same bishops, to acquiesce to all sorts of non-canonical outrages and sit on personal fortunes and tenured chairs, spit in the faces of the TOC and say we are “un-canonical.”

Patriarch +Volodymyr saw the same in the USSR in the 1970s. Certain KGB bishops, all of whom maintained communion with “world Orthodoxy,” were wealthy men who traveled the world preaching peace with the USSR and condemning the underground church as “graceless.” The Serbs, Antiocheans and especially the OCA nodded along with them, and turned to condemn the TOC as “lacking in compassion.” For Volodymyr, there could be no compromise with this mentality: they were as evil as the KGB who financed them. Fr. Vasili soon learned that the WCC was not going to help him in prison, but in fact were helping to finance his jailers. Was the OCA going to help the imprisoned in Russia, when they were created by the Moscow Patriarchate and the WCC that has assisted in the rounding up of underground Christians? But martyrdom is precisely this: rejecting the world and its pomps, and receiving the attacks of the world in return. While world orthodoxy can offer much money and academic respectability, it can not offer virtue, since the world of martyrdom is foreign to it. It cooperates with the princes of this world in order to continue to finance its activities and receive invitations to the major academic conferences.

“Evil has become more subtle these days,” patriarch Volodymyr writes, it needs not to continue rounding up the Christians, since none of them are willing to fight their jailers. The Orthodox can have their liturgy, their harmless theology AND worldly respect. But this is the voice of the anti-Christ, the one who says that you can have it both ways. Patriarch Volodymyr, spending most of his life in the GULAG, knows what a fraud this is, and therefore, throughout his pontificate, refused to commune with anyone within world Orthodoxy, and sought ties only with the Milan Synod of Auxentios for its own support of the TOC in Russia. What a mockery of his legacy are the well-fed Bound Brook and Johnstown groups and the pseudo-Patriarch Filaret, seeking recognition from Constantinople as a substitute for the faith and virtue. Neither Patriarchs +Mstyslav or +Volodymyr would commune with anyone who recognized the KGB patriarchate of Moscow as a matter of official synod policy, and therefore, sought ties only with the TOC. To reject this martyric legacy is solely based on the endless pursuit of filthy lucre and the approbation of Baal. For Volodymyr, human reason and the will that controls it is crippled by sin. This and only this is at the root of the fraud of world Orthodoxy and its support for anyone who finances them. It is a will so blinded by schism and sin that it can see only the approbation of the world as the only true good the good for which all other goods should be sacrificed.

Ultimately, our legacy is that of +Volodymyr and all the new confessors of Russia and Ukraine who would rather suffer a violent and horrific death than abandon Orthodoxy and the love of the nation. In the west, on the other hand, mainline Orthodoxy seeks to compromise with Pharaoh and his soldiers in exchange for a small place in the religious mainstream. The Milan Synod stands with its two founders, Auxentios of Athens and his ally, Patriarch Volodymyr of Ukraine, in rejecting the “world Orthodox” and seeking only martyrdom in this world of one kind or another as the only true virtue.

All quotes in this paper are taken from the collection of letters and epistles by Patriarch Volodymyr, A Voice in the Wilderness,published by The Society for the Study of Religion Under Communism, 1980

1. The thesis of Russian history, that which informs the rest, is her medieval heritage. From Ruirik to the Time of Troubles, Russia, though suffering, developed an integral unity, that of the Orthodox faith, the iconic monarchy and the independent communal form of landholding. With many fits and starts, this is the sort of Russia the Mongols froze in the 13th century.

This is the classic medieval European pattern: the free homestead (communal or otherwise), a monarchy who reigned, but dealt solely with defense, and an independent monastic church that set the tone for Christian worship. All of these institutions are fairly well known to any student of Russia, and their overlap is substantial. Nevertheless, Russia, in the Middle Ages was a Christian anarchist collective, based on tradition rather than law, ritual rather than a constitution. Medieval Ireland shares with Kievan-Rus many of the same institutions and biases. Collective independence and a pronounced communalism, itself bound together by ritual, was the norm, and functioned as the basic “constitution” of the era. Bureaucracy was unknown, and open coercion was a penalty known only to the upper classes. In Russia, as elsewhere, progress was considered inversely proportional to the elimination of communal liberty and the erection of bureaucracy.

The Mongols firstly, then the Time of Troubles, secondly, destroyed this organic unity. In addition, the battle between the Non-Possessors and the Josephites, as well as the example of Novgorod, existed as potential and actual fissures in the organic nature of medieval life. The Mongols imposed on Russia something akin to the Normans in England and later, Ireland. What had at one time been ritualistic and traditional, became increasingly bureaucratic and stratified. However slowly this movement developed, it is easily discernable in Russian life and became the very life blood of the anti-statist criticism of the Slavophiles.

Novgorod remains as the central westernized institution of Old Russia. She was an oligarchy, controlled by the higher levels of the merchant guilds. In terms of control, Novgorod was the most “absolutist” entity in medieval Russia. All aspects of urban life were controlled by the guilds, leaving the working class population without representation, and they cheered Ivan III’s conquest of the city. Far from being a “model of democracy” as countless Russia-commentators have said, Novgorod was a money-based absolutist republic, introducing to Russia elements of the occult through the Judiazers and the Kabalah, long active within the corrupt urban milieu of the Hanseatic League. Her constitution can best be described as an authoritarian oligarchic regime, and remains the cause celebre of Russia historians today.

The Mongols forced the princes of Moscow to become the realm’s major tax collectors. In fact, they were building a solid basis for rebellion, but it instructed Russia in the art of Machiavellian centralization, only to reach its apogee in Catherine II and her true successors, the Leninists. The state as somehow “molding” the citizens of an already developed ethnic unity became the basic social theory of monarchy as it moved from its iconic, medieval phase, into its modern, absolutist phase under Peter I. As militaries grew in power and expanse, they grew in expense, and as such, serfdom began to show itself in outline. Serfdom developed from two things: the suffering of the Time of Troubles, as well as the reaction of the service nobility to the greater expenses incurred by increasing westernization. Boris Gudenov faced a Russia without resources and without a future unless some method of tying peasants to the land was found. But what had become a temporary solution to a national emergency became Russia’s own peculiar institution, an institution that prohibited the state from ever reaching out to the peasantry, and eventually alienated them completely.

Nevertheless, Old Russia was prosperous and basically literate. Her ritual was the defining element in her life, and entered every aspect of Russian liveliness. It is not a stretch to call the Old Ritual the very “constitution” of Old Russia. Authority ruled rather than open power and law was based on the universally known and understood customary codes of the realm, the Russian version of the Brehon laws in Ireland.

At the same time, the main ideological battle of the medieval world developed, the basic argument over monastic landholding. This battle concerned not merely the monasteries, but the nature of the Christian life and its relation to worldly power. Such a debate was to break out under Tsar Alexis within the Zealots of Piety, between the Old Rite and the Nikonian movement. Russia historians regularly underestimate the impact this debate had on the subsequent fate of Old Russia.

The rejection of monastic landholding was a Christian anarchist vision of social life. A Russia based on agrarian tradition, the small parish and monastery based on ritual rather than law or “rule.” It was Old Russia, uninterested in global domination, but as being the New Israel, or, what amounts to the same thing, the Third Rome, ideas to be explicitly rejected by “reforming centralizers” later on. The Ukrainian idea of Sobornopravan’ was the central thought of the non-possessors: the idea of an elective parish/monastic system, decentralized and based on the ancient tradition of the church, guarded and manifested in the hierarchy, who, themselves, were to, like the Tsar, function as living icons rather than as rulers; examples based on prayer and struggle rather than synodal functionaries and political officers.

The resultant victory of the Josephites, as well as the Time of Troubles, were soon to rip Russia apart. The Josephites were not impious people, and many saints developed from that system. But its affects were corrosive. Monasteries began to be seen as repositories of state power, helping to build a global empire based on wealth and power rather than the life of Israel, based on tradition and ritual. Rites and traditions became something external from practice, something “codified” and part pf a “rule,” hence isolating it from society, making it a “power” to use against people, rather than an authority that derives from being a part of the construction of sanctity. The Josephites became the “educators” of Russia, and was the first step into bringing Russia into modernity. The church was now a unit, an entity in itself, rather than being an independent organism, a way of life rather than a cold set of monastic customaries. Nikon, as well as Peter I, would have been impossible without the Josephites.

Similarly with the Time of Troubles. Old Russia was forcibly buried with endless war, political instability and its resultant regime of serfdom. Old Russia was literally burned to the ground by invading Poles, brigands, Swedes and an oligarchic regime under Shuskii that sought to make Novgorod, rather than Moscow, the ideological center of the realm. The dislocation was severe: Starvation, empty land, chaos and disease created the Romanov dynasty, who was elected by a large council of the land to bring Russia out of chaos. And despite the manifest holiness of Patriarch PHILARET, and the Tsars Michael and Alexis, Russia was never to be the same, and the antithesis of Old Russia was slowly erected. What was built after the time of Troubles was an absolute monarchy based on western models, rather than the iconic model of medieval Ireland, Montenegro and Ukraine. The tsar became an Emperor under Peter, and began to openly coerce is increasingly alienated population. Its result was the Old Faith movement, Razin, Bulavin, Pugachev and Lenin.

2. The Antithesis of Old Russia will come in the form of the service state, based on the ideology of “Enlightened Absolutism.” High taxes for the purposes of reconstruction, increasing encroachments on Cossack autonomy, Russian penetration into Central Asia, and the emergence of the Old Ritualists led to the creation of a state increasingly divorced from the people, and increasingly able to extend its tentacles into all aspects of Russian life. Again, this process, begun by Alexis, will reach its apogee under Catherine.

It needs to be mentioned that this is the moral fault of no one. Enlightenment as brought upon Russia by force of arms and from the chaos of the Troubles. The massive military state and the “official church” were creation of the Enlightenment, not of the medieval world, who knew of no such institution. While the medievalist and Old Ritualist sees an independent church, one that animates the entire social edifice, the modern sees, like Pobedonostyev, an “official church” whose primary purpose is to legitimize a system of state that is no longer organically connected to the land. This was what motivated Razin, the Cossacks and the Old Rite. They demanded nothing more than a return to medieval social forms. They did not reject modern arms, but did reject the more draconian discipline in European armies and its immense expense. They did not decry progress (however defined) but they refused to see it outside of the moral order, the order of Old Russia. Progress did not protect Russia from Napoleon, and certainly not against Germany in World War I. But it did bankrupt the lower nobility and enslave the peasants. Russian history shows that the peasant commune protected peasants from pauperization, while the popular militia protected her from external enemies.

It remains the case that the most absolutist state of all is democratic and parliamentary. Only in modernity has it been the case that the state has it in its power to shape all of life. Medieval regimes werre based on the autonomous commune and independent corporation, the technology of domination had yet to develop in such a way so as to enslave these institutions. That was left to absolutist governments, whether royal or parliamentary. Old Russia was based on autonomous communities, rural, urban or ecclesiastical. The prince and his retinue itself also constituted an autonomous community, as it rarely had the power to control the mass of the population. When that began to change, Russia became an Empire.

The transition to empire was a disaster for Old Russia. The trauma of the Troubles and the defection of the Old Rite made it possible to create a New Russia based on western European absolutist models. While under Alexis is went in fits (it certainly did not suit his temper, but it did suit the times), under Peter I, it became systematic. Under Catherine II, it became institutionalized. In this era, Russia went from a royal government, based on medieval ideas of autonomous communities, to a European monarchy, based on some version of Hobbesianism. The commune was gradually removed from juridical independence (as Ivan IV had enshrined it), and its old police functions were replaced by the service nobility, who were given full legal control over the peasants, though it remains unclear to what extent any residual communal organization functioned. The upper reaches of this nobility became the Petrograd elite, who were to fetishize service promotion and the state itself, leading to a radical secularization of social relations and the first formal acceptance of class divisions.

In this era, the church became a department of state. Parishes lost their right to elect clergy. Monasteries were closed on a large scale, while those remaining were placed under state supervision. Catherine II closed a full third of monastic establishments, with only token opposition from the overawed synod. The clergy became a terrified, cowed, impoverished and increasingly alienated estate. The bulk of the peasantry were either of the Old Rite, or were highly sympathetic to it. The Old Faith became a weapon against Enlightened Absolutism and the assault on communal liberties. Independent estimates of the era place the Old Faith, by the 1840s, at over 20 million people, overwhelmingly peasants and merchants (though official statistics put their strength at only several million). While the Official Church did produce saints and was capable of producing holiness, these increasingly became the exception, rather than the rule. Aristocratic homes became European, and the Orthodox tradition became perfunctory. By the middle of the 19th century, most of the oligarchy abandoned Orthodoxy, or at least, treated it as a cultural relic, something to be attached to emotionally as the faith of their grandparents, but their social life revolved around British or French social ideas. Atheism in the intellectual class was the result, with the Slavophiles developing as an apologia for the Old Faith and for Old Russia, to be called obscurantists, curiously by both secularists as well as the official church. The Slavophiles, to a man, rejected the artificial monarchy of Nicholas I and its clumsy attempt to enlist church authority to buttress its claims. Under Nicholas I, the Old Faith was persecuted with increasing vigor, while the synod itself became merely a spokesmen for Imperial policies.

3. The synthesis was the 19th century, the attempt, unpolished and half-hearted, to synthesize Petrinism and Orthodoxy. And while this movement, typified by Nicholas I, Alexander III and Nicholas II, produced some fruit, such as Optina and Sarov, it was a failure, and the state toppled under the pressure of World War I. The Imperial monarchy remained as the last bastion of an earlier era against parliamentary absolutism represented by the revolutionaries of 1848, but as it had no organic links with the people, it was a paper tiger, to slowly decay and crumble, suffering the same fate as Austria- Hungary. Nicholas I was not a bad man, nor was Alexander or his ill-fated son. On the contrary, they were good men, with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, they were saddled with a system inherited from Peter and Catherine II which was isolated from the peasants, destroyed Cossack autonomy, and attacked any deviation from the positions of Nikon and the gradual westernization of Orthodoxy.

By 1800, Russia was confused and disoriented. The Old Faith was permanently removed from the country, leaving the church to its less committed brethren. Saints of the era, such as St. Seraphim of Sarov, were more or less sympathetic to Old Russia (St. Seraphim prayed with the lestovka, for example). St. Tikhon of Zadonsk regularly used the Old Books in his services, and many others, such as St. Theophan, ended up in reclusion. Elder Zosima was hounded by the official church authorities, as was St. Seraphim, while the institution of eldershipv at Optina itself came under attack in synodal quarters. Only officially sanctioned forms of worship were permitted, and deviation from the New Ritual and the New Architecture were frowned upon. Russian church music changed from the Old Faith to the Baroque, architecture fell into a pseudo-classicism, and the tradition of the church was Latinized. All seminary education was performed in Latin, and iconography became almost purely Florentine. Without the Athonie injection of St. Paisius Velichkovsky, who completely revivified monastic life in Russia, the Russian church would have become a purely Latinized, western sect.

In 1800 Russia was laboring under a serfdom that had destroyed the old commune, and, though not as evil as the Leftists would like to make it, slowly but surely enslaved the Russian peasantry. Royal decrees against the buying and selling of peasants were routinely ignored, and families were regularly broken up in slave auctions, though again, officially illegal. Instead of looking to the peasantry, the state looked to the service class. Instead of attempting to make peace with the Old Rite, they were hounded and regularly assaulted. To their credit, the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchy have publically repented of these sins, pronouncing, apologetically, the Old Faith completely Orthodox. Nevertheless, it did not stop the dissolution of Russia, which was driven by the institutional rejection of its lifeblood, the ancient faith and sense of being the New Rome.

Hence, though it is painful to utter, the Bolshevik revolution, with all its bloodshed and persecution of the faith, was a necessary cleansing of the Russian landscape. St. John of Shanghai said something similar:

Significant portions of the Russians, who have gone abroad, belong to the intelligentsia which in the last days before the revolution, lived according to the ideals of the West. Although they were children of the Orthodox Church, confessing themselves to be Orthodox, the people of that class had in their world outlook strayed far from Orthodoxy. The main sin of these people was that their beliefs and way of life were not founded on the teachings of the Orthodox faith. They try to reconcile the rules and teachings of the Church with their western habits and desires. For this reason, on one hand they had very little interest in the essence of Orthodox teaching, often even considering the Church’s dogmatic teachings completely inessential, but on the other hand, they fulfilled the requirements and duties of the Orthodox Church only in so far as this did not interfere with their more European than Russian way of life. This gave rise to their disdain for the feasts, to their going church for only a short time and then only to satisfy a more aesthetic than religious feeling and to a thorough misunderstanding of religion as the main foundation of man’s spiritual life. Many, of course, were inwardly otherwise disposed, but they lacked the strength of spirit and the ability to display this in their way of life.

In the social sphere, this class also lived by the ideas of the West, without giving any room to the Church’s influence. They strove to rebuild the Russian way of life according to western models, especially in the field of government. This is why in the last days, a particularly bitter struggle was waged with the government administration with the result that liberal reforms and democratic structuring of Russia became a new faith. Not to confess this new idea meant that you were backward. Seized with a thirst for power and utilizing the struggle with the monarchy, due to widespread slander against the Royal Family, the intelligentsia brought imperial Russia to its downfall, making way for a communist government. Then, unable to reconcile to the thought of losing the power that they had waited for so long, they declared war on the communists. In the beginning, it was mainly out of their resistance to ceding power. The struggle against the Soviets involved large sections of the populace; especially drawing in the youth in a fervent uprising to reconstruct a “united indivisible Russia” which was the goal of their lives. There were many feats of valor displayed by the Christ-loved Russian army, but the Russian nation proved itself unprepared for liberation, and the communists turned out to be the victors.

In other words, it is the Orthodox church itself that is at fault in 1917. They refused to speak out against the slaughter of World War I. They never put forth a plan for land reform, and never reached out to the peasants. They were an isolated sect who ruled at the whim of Rasputin. Despite manifestly holy men such as St. Tikhon and St. Joseph the New Martyr, the church suffered under the Bolsheviks as a lumbering, sleeping giant. A new Babylonian captivity emerged.

*******

1. Yet, the captivity bore fruit. Rather than a complacent position of worldly power, the church found herself in her natural state: a tiny persecuted minority, scattered over the face of the globe, misunderstood, fractious and disoriented. The ROCOR brought the Orthodox faith to the world, producing for us Archbishop +AVERKY, Blessed Seraphim Rose and St. John Maximovitch himself. From this comes the beginning of a new dialectic, one that exists here and now. If Old Russia is the thesis of the first motion, then the USSR is the thesis of the next. From this thesis comes its antithesis, or the rebuilding of church authority after 1990. Regardless of the irregularity of the present Moscow Patriarchy and its involvement in ecumenical relations, it is reintroducing Orthodoxy to a generation who knows its faith only second hand. And yet, with this is danger.

The danger should be clear: complacency. There is no reason for the modern Russian church to be a part of the state system, or to desire worldly power and authority. Bureaucracy and institutions are almost inherently opposed to the spirit-based religion of the Orthodox truth. A synod, to repeat, exists only to protect the tradition, or even better, it exists to manifest this tradition, a tradition being lived by the people. It is a part of the church, not above it. It can only make decisions based on the life of the faithful, clergy and monastics, rather than developing its own ideas on church life. It is common misconception that an Orthodxo synod, or even more vulgar, the patriarchy, functions as a papacy, making decisions on doctrine and practive, and using the state to enforce these rules. In reality, this is a corrupt and fallen understanding of church authority. Khomiakov wrote on this subject:

THE SPIRIT OF GOD, who lives in the Church, ruling her and making her wise, manifests Himself within her in divers manners; in Scripture, in Tradition, and in Works; for the. Church, which does the works of God, is the same Church, which preserves tradition and which has written the Scriptures. Neither individuals, nor a multitude of individuals within the Church, preserve tradition or write the Scriptures; but the Spirit of God, which lives in the whole body of the Church. Therefore it is neither right nor possible to Look for the grounds of tradition in the Scripture, nor for the proof of Scripture in tradition, nor for the warrant of Scripture or tradition in works. To a man living outside the Church neither her scripture nor her tradition nor her works are comprehensible. But to the man who lives within the Church and is united to the spirit of the Church, their unity is manifest by the grace which lives within her.

And further,

Wherefore it must be understood that Creeds and prayers and works are nothing of themselves, but are only an external manifestation of the inward spirit. Whereupon it also follows that neither he who prays nor he who does works nor he who confesses the Creed of the Church is pleasing to God, but only he who acts, confesses, and prays according to the spirit of Christ living within him. All men have not the same faith or the same hope or the same love; for a man may love the flesh, fix his hope on the world, and confess his belief in a lie; he may also love and hope and believe not fully, but only in part; and the Church calls his faith, faith, and his hope, hope, and his love, love; for he calls them so, and she will not dispute with him concerning words; but what she herself calls faith, hope, and love are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and she knows that they are true and perfect.

And even more powerfully, he writes,

Oppressed and persecuted by enemies without, at times agitated and lacerated within by the evil passions of her children, she has been and ever will be preserved without wavering or change wherever the Sacraments and spiritual holiness are preserved. Never is she either disfigured or in need of reformation. She lives not under a law of bondage, but under a law of liberty. She neither acknowledges any authority over her, except her own, nor any tribunal, but the tribunal of faith (for reason does not comprehend her), and she expresses her love, her faith, and her hope in her prayers and rites, suggested to her by the Spirit of truth and by the grace of Christ. Wherefore her rites themselves, even if they are not unchangeable (for they are composed by the spirit of liberty and may be changed according to the judgment of the Church) can never, in any case, contain any, even the smallest, admixture of error or false doctrine. And the rites (of the Church) while they are unchanged are of obligation to the members of the Church; for in their observance is the joy of holy unity.

The church functions not through external authority, but by the organism of its life. The Nikonian church forgot this, and, adding the victory of the Josephites and the creation of absolutism, created a church that was typified by its external synodal organization which was often opposed to the inner life.

2. The union of the ROCOR/MP has positive elements, but it also has negative ones. Institutions quickly become self-serving, with its own “private jokes and vices,” as Fr. Seraphim dryly noted. Once

it becomes part of the world, it will have to pay its price, which is conformity, aristocracy, bureaucratization and a certain separation from the faithful. Already the ROCOR is pretending it did not create the Greek Old Calendar movement under Metropolitan St. PHILARET. It is already being attacked by feminists for not having enough female representation in its synodal system. It has turned a blind eye to the irregularity of many of the MP’s bishops and the long standing support of the Old Regime, as evidenced by the opened KGB archives. The Romanian church is facing the same struggles. It remains the case that Alexei has publically asked forgiveness of his pro-Soviet role, and that forgiveness should be given, not used as an excuse to “run one’s own show.” Nevertheless, the intentions of the MP should remains suspect, particularly as regards ecumenism and becoming an “establishment” church. Archbishop Ilarion of Smelyansk (ROAC) has issued the following statement, one that should be taken seriously,

On at least three different occasions, the Moscow Patriarchate has committed transgressions, any one of which would be enough to cause it to fall away from the Church completely. It was only in 1961, after their triple fall into schism, that the MP adopted their heretical (ecumenical) confession of faith.

The MP’s first schism came in 1927, when Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) usurped the authority of the Sobor of Bishops, delineated a ‘new course’ for the Church in relation to the godless authorities, and subjected the Bishops who refused to embark upon this course to unlawful repercussions. Metropolitan Sergius started to exercise the full scope of power as Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, although the legitimate Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) was still alive, and even tried to talk some sense into Metropolitan Sergius through his letters from exile. The major part of the episcopacy of the Russian Church recognized Metropolitan Sergius’ actions as uncanonical, as also his usurpation of church authority, and broke canonical communion with him. The MP’s second schism came in 1936, when, after the NKVD’s false report of the death of Metropolitan Peter, Metropolitan Sergius unlawfully declared himself Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, and took over the Diocese of the Patriarch. Together with this, in an article in the ‘Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate’ for 1931, Metropolitan Sergius officially announced that the powers of Deputy automatically cease with the death of the person he is filling in for, which was quite correct.

The MP’s third schism came in 1943, when three bishops who had been sent for by Joseph Stalin, together with several other like-minded bishops, elected Metropolitan Sergius as ‘patriarch.’ This meeting of 19 bishops, which they announced as as a ‘Sobor of Bishops,’ had received no authority of any kind to elect anyone patriarch, not only because at this meeting only an insignificant part of the hierarchy of the Russian Church was represented, but because, according to Determinations of the Local Council of 1917-1918, the election of a Patriarch was the exclusive prerogative of the Local Council. The canonical episcopacy of the Russian Church, represented by its two ‘branches,’ – the catacomb Church and the Church in exile – refused to recognize Sergius as ‘patriarch,’ and thereby confirmed the utter fall of the MP, headed by him, into schism.

From schism the MP moved to heresy after it entered into the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1961, which meant its participation in ecumenism. Upon entering the WCC, the MP delegation signed the ecumenical organization’s confessional ‘basis,’ thereby admitting on behalf of the entire MP that they have the same confession of faith as the WCC. Many of the documents of the MP dating from the 1960’s contain an open confession of the heresy of ecumenism. By these actions, the MP has given all Orthodox Christians sufficient reason for separating themselves from it as a heretical association, in accordance with rule 15 of the First/Second Council.

As to whether or not the heresy of ecumenism continues to be part of the official creed of the MP, it is enough to note that not only has the MP never repented of this heresy, but it has refused to withdraw from the WCC. At each of the last four Sobors of Bishops of the MP (1994, 1997, 2000, 2004), the hierarchy passed heretical decisions confirming the participation of the MP in the ecumenical movement and expressing the totally free voice of the hierarchy of the MP. This means that any attempt to claim that the MP’s participation in the heresy of ecumenism is forced upon them by the godless authorities is unsubstantiated.

Now these issues do not invalidate the holiness of many MP faithful. It does compromise the church as the manifestation of the Spirit on earth, however. Large churches create barriers between the faithful and the clergy, it produces a facade of worldly power, despite the personality of the hierarchs themselves. But if the Nikonian absolutism is the second antithesis, then the “age of Alexei II” is the new antithesis. What, then, is the new synthesis?

3. It can only be the reintroduction of some of the key ideas of Old Russia. It will, so to speak, be the final movement in the Russian dialectic. Holy Russia, not the Holy Synod, needs to be reborn. Parishes and monasteries should be kept as small as possible (though multiplied in number), so as to preserve the atmosphere of the family, headed by the priest, the “patriarch of the family” offering up the sacrifice as a unit, rather than as an institution. The extended family should be promoted as a restoration of the old patriarchal understanding of both church life and the economy. Not as a relation of institutional power, but of familial and ritual authority. Such institutions should run their own lives, educational institutions, parishes and sketes, rendering the state irrelevant except for national defense. A restored monarchy should rule as the Kievan Grand Princes, as icons of faithfulness and tradition rather than as bureaucratic institutions. Its army should be a popular militia along the lines of the Cossack host and the militia of Minin which drove out the Poles. The extended family unit, known in Slavonic as the zadruga, should be armed, and capable of being called to national service in times of emergency, and such familial institutions themselves should become organized into pan-Russian and Orthodox federations on the anarchist and Proudhonian model.

In order to rebuild the Russian family, the countryside and the full, lived tradition of communal life, nothing less can be expected. The Putin government has been positive in that it has partially neutralized the oligarchy and its organized crime sister organizations, but it should be seen only as a temporary phenomenon, as a means of cleansing so theat the family and church can begin to resurrect Holy Russia and the Old Faith, to being defending itself through the communal and zemstva model, themselves being represented in a national federation of Russian Orthodox communities. There is no reason why the same cannot be done in an independent Ukraine, Moldova and Serbia, each living its own life according to the wishes of the federation, but completely autonomous otherwise. The worship of empire is the worship of worldly power, the lower world of cause and effect, the world of the fallen Adam. An “official church,” as opposed to the national church, the church as a national expression of a universal truth, quickly degenerates into a political tool, a set of offices to be coveted and won, rather than the ascetic struggle to be waged. That 19th century synthesis has been passed, and its results were disastrous: revolution, secularization and denationalization.

Anything else will plunge Russia back into its old errors: of the blind following of western capitalist, technophiliac, statist and bureaucratic models. The very models that created the Old Faith rebellion, Pugachev and the alienated intelligentsia. Without self governing communities on the example of the Sobornopravnist’ ideal, alienation and bureaucratization can be the only result, with ritual becoming a perfunctory exercise rather than truly intimate experience.

State power, as well as the domination of the episcopal synod is a fetish, a compromise with the world and its demands. The True Faith operates locally, though families, the zadruga and commune and skete, the non-bureaucratic elements of the Orthodox tradition on the exemplar of the Hesychasterion and hermitage. It is as a decentralized federation of local communities that the faith has historically been at its strongest, and at its weakest when it is fetishised as an appendage to state or economic power. Sobornost’ and Sobornopravanist’ is the manifestation of Old Russia, Kievan Rus, of the Old Faith and the Ukrainian Cossack tradition. The free community bound by ritual and devotion to the agrarian life of the Old Faith is the sole method by which Holy Russian can be reborn, and that the Old Faith can return and the world can at least have one island of sanity.